Not Politics: Scientists Endorse Mass Civil Disobedience To Stop ‘Climate Change’

This is totally not political, and don’t you dare say it is

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

Almost 400 scientists have endorsed a civil disobedience campaign aimed at forcing governments to take rapid action to tackle climate change, warning that failure could inflict “incalculable human suffering.”

In a joint declaration, climate scientists, physicists, biologists, engineers and others from at least 20 countries broke with the caution traditionally associated with academia to side with peaceful protesters courting arrest from Amsterdam to Melbourne.

Wearing white laboratory coats to symbolize their research credentials, a group of about 20 of the signatories gathered on Saturday to read out the text outside London’s century-old Science Museum in the city’s upmarket Kensington district.

“We believe that the continued governmental inaction over the climate and ecological crisis now justifies peaceful and non-violent protest and direct action, even if this goes beyond the bounds of the current law,” said Emily Grossman, a science broadcaster with a PhD in molecular biology. She read the declaration on behalf of the group.

“We therefore support those who are rising up peacefully against governments around the world that are failing to act proportionately to the scale of the crisis,” she said.

The declaration was coordinated by a group of scientists who support Extinction Rebellion, a civil disobedience campaign that formed in Britain a year ago and has since sparked offshoots in dozens of countries.

It is interesting that their idea of a solution is Government Doing Something. Because this is all science, not politics

While many scientists have shunned overt political debate, fearing that being perceived as activists might undermine their claims to objectivity, the 395 academics who had signed the declaration by 1100 GMT on Sunday chose to defy convention.

“The urgency of the crisis is now so great that many scientists feel, as humans, that we now have a moral duty to take radical action,” Grossman told Reuters.

No one is stopping these 400 people, and all the Extinction Rebellion nutters, from giving up their own use of fossil fuels, hair dryers, air conditioning and heating, showers longer than 2 minutes, more than 2 sheets of toilet paper, living in homes over 300 square feet, eating food they didn’t grow, eating meat, ice makers, etc and so on. Giving a goodly chunk of their money to the government. Practicing what they preach.

“We can’t allow the role of scientists to be to just write papers and publish them in obscure journals and hope somehow that somebody out there will pay attention,” Julia Steinberger, an ecological economist at the University of Leeds and a lead IPCC author, told Reuters.

Oh, so people who have a stake in perpetuating the climate scam, along with increasing the size and power of government.

Say, did any media folks ask these scientists (many are not) about the nutters gluing themselves to things, including airplanes? How about duping fake blood all over the place? Dancing like they’re on drugs? How about interfering with average people just trying to go about their lives?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Not Politics: Scientists Endorse Mass Civil Disobedience To Stop ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Doom and Gloom says:

    Markets
    America’s Great Shale Oil Boom Is Nearly Over
    But another one is probably on the way, as the industry reaches adulthood.

    Article from Bloomberg. Basically a leftist business rag.

    What’s my point. If you read the article its the end of oil shale and America will once again fall into chaos because we aren’t selling so much Oil.

    Only until you dig way deep into the article do you find the reason oil shale production is stagnant is that oil pipelines are at capacity and the whacko AGW crowds and Warren Buffet keep delaying oil and natural gas pipelines from finishing.

    Why Buffet? Well, of course, the billionaire democrat uses Burlington Northern to haul all the oil from North Dakota, Montana to markets and he has demanded that Nebraska block the pipeline from Canada which would also be used by North Dakota.

    There are 3 pipelines being blocked right now that are preventing oil from getting to markets. Oil shale is not running out, nor is America’s ability to produce it. Instead of focusing on blocking oil these leftist whackos should be demanding their 1000 leftist billionaires spend their money on green energy instead of making a fortune off of the very thing they pretend to be against.

    But you don’t hear any of this in opinion pieces or articles in the MSM. What they continually feed to the left is half-truth and misinformation so that when it doesn’t pan out like HRC’s election they begin throwing hissy fits and demanding that Russia must be behind it because the MSM said it was X when in reality it was more like K.

    When you watch the Youtube streamers they are so full of lies, half truths and misdirection that their viewers come away thinking it will be 538-0 in 2020 no matter who runs. Simply because ORANGE MAN IS BAD and all those people who voted for him would not dare vote for him a second time.

    THE MSM is rightly being called the MARXIST SCAM MACHINE.

    • Dana says:

      Mr Gloom wrote:

      When you watch the Youtube streamers they are so full of lies, half truths and misdirection that their viewers come away thinking it will be 538-0 in 2020 no matter who runs.

      “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead?” screamed the lovely Mrs Clinton. “There is no possible way Donald Trump’s team actually believes this is their path to 270” was the headline in The Washington Post. David Plouffe has a still-available YouTube video on Why Donald Trump Can’t Get to 270.

      Let’s face it: the patricians thought that it should have been 538-0 in 2016, and even grudgingly admitting that some of us rubes in the flyover states might vote for the evil and wicked buffoon, they just knew, knew! that Her Inevitableness was going to be the 45th President of the United States.

      Oops!

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Don’t forget that trump’s opponent (a very unpopular choice) received more votes, and that several thousand votes in the upper Midwest determined the outcome.

        And look at the godawful hash that trump has made of things. Even trump wants out. His best bet is to get impeached and convicted so he can cry his crocodile tears and be the unfair victim of a partisan witchhunt.

        But I still bet he’ll cut a deal. He won’t risk losing the election – but a lot will depend on how much help he can from Ukraine, Russia, China and others. Do any of you have a doubt that he will do ANYTHING to win, even if illegal?

        • alanstorm says:

          “And look at the godawful hash that trump has made of things”

          Examples? I’m sure you can cite some. All the “godawful hash” I see has come from the left.

          for counter-examples, see here: http://americandigest.org/wp/not-tired-of-winning-yet-the-two-year-reference-list/

        • formwiz says:

          Fraudulent votes don’t count, and he won the entire country except CA by a million votes.

          And look at the godawful hash that trump has made of things.

          He has? How? He’s winning on the border. He’s winning on the economy. he’s winning with NoKo. He’s winning with Red China. He’s winning in the Middle East.

          Even trump wants out.

          Sure didn’t look like it in MN and LA last week.

          His best bet is to get impeached and convicted so he can cry his crocodile tears and be the unfair victim of a partisan witchhunt.

          Sounds more like Pelosi Galore and Schiff For Brains

          But I still bet he’ll cut a deal. He won’t risk losing the election – but a lot will depend on how much help he can from Ukraine, Russia, China and others.

          You’ve been betting that for a couple of years, pending the release of Mule Ears’ blockbuster report. Now the phony impeachment, which starting to make even Democrats fed up with the nonsense. And you really expect anybody to buy the idea Red China or Russia is in his corner? No evidence, no collusion, no deal, no obstruction.

          Do any of you have a doubt that he will do ANYTHING to win, even if illegal?

          That’s your side, not ours.

        • formwiz says:

          PS trump’s opponent (a very unpopular choice) received more votes

          But all the polls said she was a shoo-in.

          How could she be unpoplular if she won the popular vote? /sarc.

          several thousand votes in the upper Midwest determined the outcome.

          Sorry. The Donald won more states than Zippy ever did. Unless, like the Beast’s 7 million fraudulent votes, Zippy won the 51st – 57th states.

          You need to get your story straight.

        • Dana says:

          No, Mr Trump received more votes, 304 of them, to only 227 for his closest opponent. Those are the election results, not that silly ‘popular vote’ stuff.

          But I still bet he’ll cut a deal. He won’t risk losing the election – but a lot will depend on how much help he can from Ukraine, Russia, China and others.

          https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif Izzat anything like your prediction, “tRump will not be president at the end of 2019. Believe me. Mark my word.”

          If President Trump really didn’t want to risk losing the election, he could simply have chosen not to run for re-election.

          Do any of you have a doubt that he will do ANYTHING to win, even if illegal?

          “If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.” — Joe Montana

          “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” — Vince Lombardi

          “Gentlemen, this school is about combat. There are no points for second place.” — “Viper” in Top Gun.

          Yes, I would imagine that Mr Trump and his Democratic opponent will do anything that they can to win, legal or otherwise. You don’t seem to combitch about the Democrats harvesting votes from the cemetery or trying to prevent illegal immigrants and convicted felons from voting, so I won’t object to the GOP trying every means, fair or foul to win the election.

  2. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Wearing white laboratory coats to symbolize their research credentials,

    Bwaha!

    Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  3. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host got it wrong:

    No one is stopping these 400 people, and all the Extinction Rebellion nutters, from giving up their own use of fossil fuels, hair dryers, air conditioning and heating, showers longer than 2 minutes, more than 2 sheets of toilet paper, living in homes over 300 square feet, eating food they didn’t grow, eating meat, ice makers, etc and so on. Giving a goodly chunk of their money to the government. Practicing what they preach.

    Certainly someone is stopping them: their wives are stopping them, their children are stopping them, and they are stopping themselves. They are smart enough to realize that their university professor lifestyles are something they cherish, and they ain’t gonna give them up.

    Because you know what else would have to go if their proposals were implemented? A whole lot of university professorships! As taxpayer dollars get spent on their cockamamie ideas and the public become poorer, governments will have to cut back on funding for universities!

    Just think of the horrors! Rather than having fawning students and college campuses (campi?) full of 20-year-old coeds to look at every day, they might have to move into an older farmhouse to set up their solar panels and grow their own food, and have only their wives with whom to copulate. Scratching at the dirt to bring forth potatoes and beans isn’t quite as nice as being able to eat at the nice restaurants in university towns.

    But, scolds being scolds, they have to scold, they have to talk the talk, even if they have no intention of walking the walk. That, of course, is for the plebeians, not the patricians.

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Politics is the way societies negotiate to get things done, and scientists should be encouraged to participate. How are our “leaders” supposed to make informed decisions if they are not receiving accurate information, including the opinions of experts?

    • formwiz says:

      When those issues are being distorted by people with an agenda, even “scientists”, it can be tough.

      And “Politics is the way societies negotiate to get things done” sounds an awful lot like those canned slogans the Choom Gang used, like “Government’ is just a name for things we all do together”, or “man-caused disaster”.

      Politics is often anything but negotiation.

    • alanstorm says:

      “How are our “leaders” supposed to make informed decisions if they are not receiving accurate information, including the opinions of experts?”

      Good question. Too bad lefty idiots (BIRM) are making that difficult if not impossible.

  5. Jl says:

    If the evidence is weak, one uses politics. If the evidence is weak, one goes to “consensus”.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      No offense, but you likely just don’t understand scientific evidence. Many don’t.

      Actually, consensus is very important in science. For example, oncologists evaluate data from large and expensive clinical trials, and reach a consensus about the best treatment plan. Each oncologist doesn’t conduct their own clinical trial, nor do they base treatment decisions on a hunch.

      Scientific theories are rarely “proven”, but the totality of the evidence supporting a theory helps the scientific field (e.g., treating non-small cell lung cancer) reach a consensus. A theory can be “falsified” with evidence from well-designed, well-conducted studies.

      Do conservatives wish that scientists had kept their mouths shut regarding the dangers of tobacco? Was it really proven that cigarette smoking causes cancer or COPD? No. But correlation studies in smokers and nonclinical studies were convincing enough to allow a medical consensus to be reached.

      There are scientific consensuses around evolution and climate change. This doesn’t mean the theories can’t be modified or even falsified.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        No offense but you’ve not the slightest understanding of the term “evidence”. Scientific or otherwise.

        Lolgfy little sissybitch https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Kye says:

        Stop already with the unscientific term “consensus”.

        Thirty years ago people were instructed to eat less fat, but scientists have since concluded that was bad advice and may have contributed to the diabetes epidemic by causing people to eat more carbohydrates.
        This time some authorities are unwilling to admit they were wrong, because demented global warming politics has entered the discussion. They are playing hardball to discredit real science on behalf of ideologically driven pseudoscience. They call it “consensus”.

        The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which promotes plant-based diets, has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against the journal that published the research. SERIOUSLY! And Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health warned that the conclusions could “erode public trust in scientific research.”

        Actually, it is placing ideology above science that erodes public trust. We believe in science so long as it is willing to challenge itself. Once the authorities start bellowing that the “science is settled” or there is a “consensus” and trying to crush anyone who won’t submit, it isn’t science, it is dogma — something you believe because you are supposed to, not because it is true.

        Harvard health gurus also complained that the researchers should have studied the environmental impact of red meat in their review because “climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health” and thus are “important to consider when making recommendations.”

        Having entered the realm of pure farce, the climate thought police expect ostensibly scientific articles to declare that even if hamburgers can’t be linked to cancer or heart disease, according to leftist doctrine they make it be too hot out, which could give you heat stroke or whatever. This is literally insane.

        People like Fredo contribute to this farce and corruption of science and it is there fault thinking people no longer trust science. Just another occupation corrupted and made meaningless by leftist ideology like the “media”, law, academia and the oath of office. The poat American society where no one can be trusted and there is no truth.

        Everything the left touches it destroys from sex to the weather.

        Trump 2020 Keep America in recovery.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Gomer,

          Actually “consensus” is a very scientific term. It is when the bulk of a scientific field accepts evidence as being persuasive. Do conservative “thinkers” have a better method in mind?

          “When we talk about scientific consensus, we’re talking about an understanding that is thought to be so solid that it will require a whole slew of observations, measurements and experiments to have been grossly misinterpreted for this conclusion to have been reached incorrectly.”

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/24/what-does-scientific-consensus-mean/#25b5a4dd6bae

          Today’s so-called skeptics don’t stop with thousands of experts in climate research misinterpreting data, no siree bob, they envision a plot by communists, Democrats, organized religions, scientists, nations, and scientific organizations who are INTENTIONALLY engaged in a hoax to destroy capitalism and subjugate the few Earthlings who do not understand global warming.

          There is a scientific consensus on “germs” causing contagious diseases (and it now includes prion diseases!). There is a scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking. There is a scientific consensus on evolution. There is a scientific consensus on carbon monoxide poisoning. There is a scientific consensus on global warming. There is a scientific consensus on the age of the universe and the age of the Earth. There is a scientific consensus on gravity. There is a scientific consensus on the origin of the universe (It All Started With a Big Bang!).

          As was pointed out, a scientific consensus is not always right, just as a scientific theory can be invalidate or modified. Decades ago was a consensus that stress caused ulcers, but it turns out that was falsified with the discovery that Helicobacter pylori could cause ulcers. It is an infection!! But this doesn’t prove that all theories are false, or that any others are.

          It seems that people like Gomer hate institutions that counter Gomer’s beliefs. That’s not new.

          • formwiz says:

            Bunny suit is trying to make out he’s hip because he’s from the Wicket city. Somebody needs to tell him people on both coasts regard anybody east of the Sierras and west of the Alleghenies as rednecks.

            Actually “consensus” is a very scientific term. It is when the bulk of a scientific field accepts evidence as being persuasive.

            All the consensus said Copernicus was wrong.

            Today’s so-called skeptics don’t stop with thousands of experts in climate research misinterpreting data, no siree bob, they envision a plot by communists, Democrats, organized religions, scientists, nations, and scientific organizations who are INTENTIONALLY engaged in a hoax to destroy capitalism and subjugate the few Earthlings who do not understand global warming.

            Tough to deny the facts. Communism is sinking by the bow, so they have to try something else.

            There is a scientific consensus on “germs” causing contagious diseases (and it now includes prion diseases!). There is a scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking. There is a scientific consensus on evolution. There is a scientific consensus on carbon monoxide poisoning. There is a scientific consensus on global warming. There is a scientific consensus on the age of the universe and the age of the Earth. There is a scientific consensus on gravity. There is a scientific consensus on the origin of the universe (It All Started With a Big Bang!).

            No, actually there is proof on the germ theory of disease (consensus thought Pasteur was a nut) The consensus on evolution, however, is taking a beating as Darwin’s hope that the holes in his theory being plugged aren’t going according to plan.

            And I’m not aware of any consensus on the age or origin of the universe (can’t wait to hear this one) (and not everybody buys the Big Bang; you need to read more).

            But if there is consensus on global nonsense, it rests on faked data and peer pressure to go along with the crowd.

            Proof is still required and Michael Mann backed away from his chance to prove his hockey stick.

            Decades ago was a consensus that stress caused ulcers, but it turns out that was falsified with the discovery that Helicobacter pylori could cause ulcers. It is an infection!!

            Try again. Prolonged use of NSAIDs may cause them as well as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome which can cause stomach and intestinal ulcers by increasing the body’s production of acid.

            Conditions can be aggravated by smoking, booze, spicy foods, and, here it comes, untreated stress. And pylori is still in the theory stage.

            It seems that people like Gomer hate institutions that counter Gomer’s beliefs. That’s not new.

            Mortimer Snerd should talk. Anybody who challenges his lies is a white supremacist.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The velvet pantsuit equates today’s deniers with Copernicus.

            Who is today’s Copernicus? Who will kill global warming? Tony Wuwt? Donald Trump?

            Many deniers are broad-spectrum deniers, denying more than one accepted scientific theory. For example, global warming deniers often deny evolution and the age of the universe.

  6. formwiz says:

    The velvet pantsuit equates today’s deniers with Copernicus.

    Who is today’s Copernicus? Who will kill global warming? Tony Wuwt? Donald Trump?

    Many deniers are broad-spectrum deniers, denying more than one accepted scientific theory. For example, global warming deniers often deny evolution and the age of the universe.

    Trump is a good start. He keeps proving how wrong you morons are every day.

    And ICYMI there are a lot of holes in evolution and Darwin was the first to say so and hoped future science would fill in the blanks. The record isn’t that swell. Did you know Evolutionists can’t begin to explain the eye? There is no progression. It simply appears in animals at one point in time, rather than developing.

    As for the age of the universe, there’s a good deal of debate on that. I wouldn’t put a lot of money on that one until we can get out there and poke around a bit more.

    PS You can put Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, among others, in with us deniers.

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Commenter typed: Did you know evolutionists can’t begin to explain the eye?

    They can’t? They can’t even begin?

    Did you know even bacteria and single cell animals possess eyespots which contain light sensitive proteins (including rhodopsins)?

    The eye is often used by creationists or evolution deniers as a complex functional organ that just couldn’t have evolved. Yet, visual pigments are found throughout the animal kingdom from bacteria to paramecium to humans. Opsins and crystallin proteins are found throughout invertebrates and vertebrates. The eye has absolutely evolved.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/26/8989.full.pdf

    Science deniers often claim that intense debate or argument is going on in a scientific field.

    Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton wouldn’t be deniers if they were alive today. You see, as intelligent, open-minded people find further information they can change their minds.

  8. Professor Hale says:

    Nothing says unbiased devotion to “Science” like big political activist symbols on your back.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10272 access attempts in the last 7 days.