T & L
I’ve taken the time, as it’s made itself available to me, to go through the 11,000+ signatories of so-called scientists and I have picked out those who identify as being located in New Zealand. I’ve subjected them all to internet searches. I’ve found that most are scientists of some sort and most have PhDs, so, one can reasonably conclude, most are intelligent.
Most are located in universities, and many are in the NZ Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd. But MOST have no qualifications nor experience nor research in climate, weather or meteorology. So, like you and me and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, theirs are just opinions based on what others have told them. As for me, every single one of the most intelligent and honest people I know (and the intelligence and the honesty have to both be present) have told me that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud.
My internet search revealed that most of the university academics are located in ecology/environment departments. They are greenies so it is highly likely that they vote for the Green Party. Although it might be quite irrelevant, many of the university dons were not born nor raised in New Zealand.
As has been pointed out by Canadian and Australian critics, this “document” is an online item, widely distributed among the academic community for anyone to sign, each being called a scientist. If I’d signed, I’d be counted as a scientist.
Below is my list of the New Zealand signatories. I’ve left off those that are irrelevant.
In total, 184 signatories are identified as being located in New Zealand. Of those, my searches identified 13 as scientists involving themselves in the subject, which is ONLY 7%.
Those 13 are:
- David Campbell
- Nick Golledge
- Simon Hales
- Peter Kreft
- Shona Mackie
- Olaf Morgenstern
- Ken Ryan
- Hinrich Schaefer
- Luitgard Schwendenmann
- Mark Todd
- Jonathan Tonkin
- Matthew Turnbull
- Jason Tylianakis
Jonathan Tonkin, who has a PhD in Ecology, is reported as saying that global climate and land-use changes are rapidly altering the environment for ecological systems.
“I’m trying to forecast what ecosystems will look like in the future and modelling approaches to ecosystems. The problem is that, with the rate the environment is changing, historical tools we have used aren’t capable of predicting the future.”
In view of the Canadian and Australian findings, it’s probably reasonable to apply the 7% relevancy to the total signatories. That would reduce the 11,000 scientists to 770 relevant scientists which is quite a difference.
I’m not sure that TV news would headline with “770 scientists around the world warn of untold suffering if the climate emergency is not addressed!” Anyway, isn’t there a consensus of 97% of the world’s climate scientists? Where are their signatures? Are there only 794 climate scientists in the world?