@PC What number
Perhaps you mean the numbers in my hypothetical example ?
"Imagine if the situation was reversed "

BTW Do you deny that about 500 on the original 11,000 list seem to be undergraduate students ?

Hypothetical=totally made up. You can't say 'Imagine if the situation was reversed' and then describe something markedly different....or maybe you can.

'BTW Do you deny that about 500 on the original 11,000 list seem to be undergraduate students '

That would invalidate the list if true. Could you detail some of their names, say 50?

'

That point would seem to depend on redefining what was meant by a 'scientist'.

Nowhere did the paper claim the signatories were practising climate scientists. So arguing on that basis is futile.

He then decides that 40 signatories using the Spanish spelling of 'Professor' counts against the paper.

Ah, but wait, apparently, after citing a list of (wrong) numbers

Doh it's not the actual number that matters

We then have the thought experiment of

'Imagine if the situation was reversed and it was we skeptics that had done did a internet petition [...]

Including

another close (sic) 1,000 are retired etc.

Followed by

I do think that retired scientists count as proper scientists

I mean, c'mon, he's all over the map on this.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community endorse the IPCC position, and some, understandably, interpret that as an 'emergency'. Here's the position statement of the US AGU (20,000 members), I could have chosen the US National Academy of Science, our own Royal Society, or indeed any professional association of scientists

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways – some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

hile important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

From <https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Human-induced-climate-change-requires-urgent-action>

Do you deny that about 500 on the original 11,000 list seem to be undergraduate students

That would invalidate the list if true. Could you detail some of their names, say 50?

I simply cutNpasted someones word counts

That would be a 'no'.

Inaccurate to the last, the word 'student' occurs 974 times, however the phrase 'Phd student' or 'graduate student' occurs over 800 times. The number where the signatory just signs 'student' barely makes it into double figures. Stewgreen has just pasted somebody else's BS, ironically without performing basic quality checks.

As I posted earlier, I'm not a fan of this type of exercise, and it's arguable that a few names were included that should not have been, however these amount to the kind of error rate inherent in any opinion survey and do not falsify the headline number of 11,000 scientists.

My last word on this.

(BTW that thread has various screenshots here

Those are not of the same list.

Again, Spiked is just including climate science or related disciplines, nowhere in the paper do they claim this was the criterion for inclusion. You can 'prove' anything if you make up your own rules.

I do not see why Professor Matthew Baylis, Professor of Veterinary Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool, is (a) not a scientist or (b) not entitled to agree that we face a climate emergency.

The same applies to the overwhelming majority of the other signatories.

You can 'prove' anything if you make up your own rules.

errr....pot .... you know the rest

So, you agree with science by consensus, then, Mr Clarke

Nope. Doesn't follow. My remark was in the context of the topic of the thread, which is about the support within the scientific community for what I use the shorthand 'IPCC position'.

So so cant access it.

Of course you can, Its supplemental file 1, you can access it by following the link in the article.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

You mean all this time you haven't actually read the damn thing???

No, they removed the bogus names. All 34 of them.

But then you'd know that if you had read it - it was never taken down, that was just one more of your bogus claims.

Still looking forward to discovering the names of those 500 undergraduates.

To summarise: your criticisms were based on what other people posted about the paper and the signatories. You are critical of the exercise and the rigour of its reveiw process, but you didn't bother to check the BS you posted against the freely-available actual list.

If they had left the erroneous names up, you'd have been the first to complain.

The latest version of Microsoft Word can open pdfs and has good review and word count functions.

.Do I have wade through it picking out things like that and the gynecologists etc ?

What, substantiate the things you've posted? Would have some novelty value....