Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-21 Thread David Briggs 
Dear Daniel,

I could not disagree with you more. As scientists it falls to us to support our 
colleagues (from whatever other discipline) when they provide evidence that has 
profound ramifications for humanity.

Would we hesitate to stand by colleagues who (for example) demonstrate the 
efficacy of vaccination, or that the earth really is an oblate spheroid?

If me being a signatory (not author, important distinction, as noted above) to 
this helps get this message across in even a small way, then it is 2 minutes of 
my time well spent.

As for whether or not scientists from one discipline can make a valuable and 
informed contributions to another, I hope Kevin Cowtan won't mind that I 
suggest you take a look at his work on climate modelling.

Dave

--
Dr David C. Briggs
Senior Laboratory Research Scientist
Signalling and Structural Biology Lab
The Francis Crick Institute
London, UK
==
about.me/david_briggs



From: Edwin Pozharski
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 06:34
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other 
scientists to sign this letter
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


Dear Daniel,

with all due respect, I do believe that you are making several mistakes in your 
argument.

English is not my native tongue, but I suspect that there is a substantial 
difference between "author" and "signatory".  What people are asked to do here 
is essentially to sign a petition, not to become a co-author in traditional 
sense.  There were 39 signatories to the US Constitution, certainly not all of 
them are considered its authors.

Furthermore, most structural biologists are trained scientists and it is rather 
routine part of our job to evaluate research we are not exactly experts in.  I 
am not a climatologist, but I do take exception to your assertion that I am 
therefore automatically too ignorant to understand basic concepts that pertain 
to global warming and climate change.  A climatologist wouldn't instantly know 
what B-factors are, but is certainly capable of understanding the concept if 
you explain it.

Using physical science and its data to arrive at conclusions regarding 
religion, politics and economic theory (!) is not at all embarrassing.  (And 
letter in question hardly does any "preaching", certainly not about religion)

As for your demand that people stick to structural biology, may I suggest that 
your reaction to exactly one entry in ccp4bb that elicited almost zero follow 
up (until your comment) feels a bit overblown?  If you strongly disagree with 
Dr Ripple and his colleagues, that is fine, but why shouldn't people at ccp4bb 
occasionally share somewhat orthogonal information?  None of us want to see 
inappropriate content, I am just not sure why you feel that this specific post 
is something that needs to be purged.

Just to be clear - your post does create an impression that you might hold the 
opinion that, as they say, "global warming is a hoax".  Please, let's not have 
further discussion online on the specifics, but I think it might be helpful if 
you could confirm or deny this.

Cheers,

Ed.

---
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say 
it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "The Friends of Voltaire"

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:23 PM Daniel M. Himmel, Ph. D. 
mailto:danielmhim...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in climatology,
and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as 
scientists
to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed
research nor intellectual content of the manuscript?  Are we now going against
the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable biological
journals normally hold us as authors?  And doesn't it hurt the credibility
of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which it 
appears
if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear
without humility as authors to such an article?

Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical
sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and economic
theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?

Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws
firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model that has 
high
B-factors?  So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an analogous
error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a controversial 
interpretation
of selected earth science data?  See, for example,
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/
 about the ways

Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Edwin Pozharski 
Dear Daniel,

with all due respect, I do believe that you are making several mistakes in
your argument.

English is not my native tongue, but I suspect that there is a substantial
difference between "author" and "signatory".  What people are asked to do
here is essentially to sign a petition, not to become a co-author in
traditional sense.  There were 39 signatories to the US Constitution,
certainly not all of them are considered its authors.

Furthermore, most structural biologists are trained scientists and it is
rather routine part of our job to evaluate research we are not exactly
experts in.  I am not a climatologist, but I do take exception to your
assertion that I am therefore automatically too ignorant to understand
basic concepts that pertain to global warming and climate change.  A
climatologist wouldn't instantly know what B-factors are, but is certainly
capable of understanding the concept if you explain it.

Using physical science and its data to arrive at conclusions regarding
religion, politics and economic theory (!) is not at all embarrassing.
(And letter in question hardly does any "preaching", certainly not about
religion)

As for your demand that people stick to structural biology, may I suggest
that your reaction to exactly one entry in ccp4bb that elicited almost zero
follow up (until your comment) feels a bit overblown?  If you strongly
disagree with Dr Ripple and his colleagues, that is fine, but why shouldn't
people at ccp4bb occasionally share somewhat orthogonal information?  None
of us want to see inappropriate content, I am just not sure why you feel
that this specific post is something that needs to be purged.

Just to be clear - your post does create an impression that you might hold
the opinion that, as they say, "global warming is a hoax".  Please, let's
not have further discussion online on the specifics, but I think it might
be helpful if you could confirm or deny this.

Cheers,

Ed.

---
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "The Friends of Voltaire"

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:23 PM Daniel M. Himmel, Ph. D. <
danielmhim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in
> climatology,
>
> and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as
> scientists
>
> to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed
>
> research nor intellectual content of the manuscript?  Are we now going
> against
>
> the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable
> biological
>
> journals normally hold us as authors?  And doesn't it hurt the credibility
>
> of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which it
> appears
>
> if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear
>
> without humility as authors to such an article?
>
>
>
> Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical
>
> sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and
> economic
>
> theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?
>
>
>
> Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws
>
> firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model
> that has high
>
> B-factors?  So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an
> analogous
>
> error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a controversial
> interpretation
>
> of selected earth science data?  See, for example,
>
> https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/
> about the ways
>
> climate data can be misinterpreted by choosing too tight a time interval,
> and lets stick to
>
> structural biology and allied sciences in the CCP4 list, please.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Daniel M. Himmel
>
>
>
>>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Dale Tronrud 
Dear Dr Himmel,

   I certainly agree that a scientist getting into the nitty-gritty of a
field outside of their training can make quite silly mistakes.  The link
you have provided to us makes an excellent example of your point.

   Dr Akasofu is a trained space scientist who studied the aurora
borealis and then spent most of his career in administration. (According
to the blog post)  Since his childhood he has disbelieved most anything
proposed by experts in whatever field.  Now we are expected to take
seriously his vague ramblings about "cycles" in climate?  What evidence
does he present?  Nothing but speculation that the climate "might" be
driven by this or "might" be driven by that.  Dr Akasofu brings nothing
to the table.

Dale Tronrud

On 8/20/2019 6:23 PM, Daniel M. Himmel, Ph. D. wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
>  
> 
> Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in
> climatology, 
> 
> and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as
> scientists 
> 
> to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed
> 
> research nor intellectual content of the manuscript?  Are we now going
> against 
> 
> the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable
> biological 
> 
> journals normally hold us as authors?  And doesn't it hurt the credibility 
> 
> of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which
> it appears 
> 
> if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear 
> 
> without humility as authors to such an article?
> 
>  
> 
> Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical
> 
> sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and
> economic
> 
> theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?
> 
>  
> 
> Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws
> 
> firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model
> that has high
> 
> B-factors?  So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an
> analogous
> 
> error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a
> controversial interpretation 
> 
> of selected earth science data?  See, for example,
> 
> https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/
> about the ways 
> 
> climate data can be misinterpreted by choosing too tight a time
> interval, and lets stick to 
> 
> structural biology and allied sciences in the CCP4 list, please.
> 
>  
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Daniel M. Himmel
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

[ccp4bb] RES: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Rafael Marques 
Dear Daniel.

I really understand your point of view and I must say that I agree with it, at 
certain extent. Science is all about evidence and not what we (sometimes) want 
to see or want to believe. You are completely right when you say that, inside 
academia, evidence should be always discussed by those who have deep knowledge 
about the subject. Good science is based on good standards, and good standards 
are exactly what make our science so robust.

While I must say that it bothers me when someone who is not an expert in "my" 
field criticizes my job, I recognize that what makes what we do different than 
any religion is exactly the possibility of being criticized, both by those 
related to the field and those who might have  a good point of view.

Also, we know the rules inside the academia, how to analyze data and we know 
too that, in general, the population does not understand at all the meaning and 
the methods inside science. If we try to explain any scientific data to these 
people using our methods and standards it will be a huge failure (I can't even 
change the mind of my nephews, which after a NatGeo show started to believe in 
mermaids). When we deal with a non-academic public, we must emphasize how 
important is to make science, the good things that came from it and, most 
important, we need to be understood.

In fact, there is some discussion if the global warming is only natural or if 
it has been happening because the human activity. However, it is pretty clear 
that mankind is affecting the weather by the increase of carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere and the large impact caused by cattle. A five minutes search on 
Google can give you back several papers, but I am going to present you only 
this one, concerned in devaluation.

HTTPS://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/

As scientists, we are the ones who might have no knowledge in the field, but 
the ones able to point out a critical view. When we refuse to talk to the 
population cause we are not experts is that field, someone else takes our 
place. And generally, they attack science and scientists, giving simple answers 
for complex problems. That is because they know what the population wants to 
hear. That is how Trump has become the USA president and Billboards did the 
same here in Brazil.

When we refuse to look for information, refuse to spread it to the general 
population  and hide inside the academia, we must be aware that someone, for 
sure, is taking our place. That is exactly why currently so many people believe 
that the Earth is flat and that vaccines provoke diseases. That is also the 
meaning why Greta Thunders, a sixteen years old teenager activist , is better 
known than the experts in the field. If we want to be believed we must take 
back our place. To hind is not an option.

Regards




Rafael Marques da Silva
Mestrando em Física Biomolecular
Universidade de São Paulo

Bacharel em Ciências Biológicas
Universidade Federal de São Carlos

phone: +55 16 99766-0021

   "A sorte acompanha uma mente bem treinada"



De: CCP4 bulletin board  em nome de Daniel M. Himmel, 
Ph. D. 
Enviado: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:23:05 PM
Para: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK 
Assunto: Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other 
scientists to sign this letter

Dear colleagues,

Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in climatology,
and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as 
scientists
to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed
research nor intellectual content of the manuscript?  Are we now going against
the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable biological
journals normally hold us as authors?  And doesn't it hurt the credibility
of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which it 
appears
if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear
without humility as authors to such an article?

Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical
sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and economic
theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?

Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws
firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model that has 
high
B-factors?  So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an analogous
error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a controversial 
interpretation
of selected earth science data?  See, for example,
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/ about the 
ways
climate data can be misinterpreted by choosing too tight a time interval, and 
lets stick to
structural biology and allied sciences in the CCP4 list, please.

Respectfully,
Daniel M. Himmel

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Edward A. Berry 

Sorry- Richard Muller (How could  I get that wrong?!)



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Edward A. Berry 

Agreed. I support green new deal and I think we should be doing all we can to 
combat climate change,
not because I have studied it and concluded it is a problem but because some 
very smart people have, and have come to that conclusion. But I would not sign 
a letter saying that I have concluded, AS A SCIENTIST, that it is a problem we 
can do something about. That turns a scientific investigation into a popularity 
contest. I don't want to be one the 97% that Peter Mueller is talking about in 
his response (currently second in the list, I think) to:
https://www.quora.com/It-is-claimed-that-97-of-climate-scientists-state-that-anthropogenic-climate-change-is-real-What-evidence-do-the-3-who-dont-think-so-have-What-are-some-good-counterarguments-to-their-claims

On 08/20/2019 09:23 PM, Daniel M. Himmel, Ph. D. wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in climatology,

and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as 
scientists

to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed

research nor intellectual content of the manuscript?  Are we now going against

the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable biological

journals normally hold us as authors?  And doesn't it hurt the credibility

of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which it 
appears

if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear

without humility as authors to such an article?

Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical

sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and economic

theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?

Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws

firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model that has 
high

B-factors?  So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an analogous

error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a controversial 
interpretation

of selected earth science data?  See, for example,

https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/ 

 about the ways

climate data can be misinterpreted by choosing too tight a time interval, and 
lets stick to

structural biology and allied sciences in the CCP4 list, please.

Respectfully,

Daniel M. Himmel


--

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1 






To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Daniel M. Himmel, Ph. D. 
Dear colleagues,



Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in
climatology,

and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as
scientists

to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed

research nor intellectual content of the manuscript?  Are we now going
against

the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable
biological

journals normally hold us as authors?  And doesn't it hurt the credibility

of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which it
appears

if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear

without humility as authors to such an article?



Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical

sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and
economic

theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?



Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws

firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model that
has high

B-factors?  So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an
analogous

error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a controversial
interpretation

of selected earth science data?  See, for example,

https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/ about
the ways

climate data can be misinterpreted by choosing too tight a time interval,
and lets stick to

structural biology and allied sciences in the CCP4 list, please.



Respectfully,

Daniel M. Himmel



>



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Casadei Cecilia (PSI) 
Dear Wim,

thank you for this very good initiative.

Kind regards,

Cecilia

__
Paul Scherrer Institut
Dr. Cecilia Casadei
Laboratory of Biomolecular Research
OFLC/104
5232 Villigen PSI
Schweiz

E-Mail: cecilia.casa...@psi.ch


From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Wim Burmeister 
[wim.burmeis...@ibs.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:57 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists 
to sign this letter

Hello,
I transmit this initiative for those who feel that there is also life outside 
reciprocal space and and not only scientist in specialist disciplines have a 
responsibility in real space.
The graphs in the paper mentioned below are sufficiently explicit to understand 
that there is a big problem.
Best wishes
Wim

Dear Colleague,
We are inviting you and all scientists to sign our new in-press BioScience 
paper "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency" which we want to 
present to world leaders.

The article is short and can be read in fewer than eight minutes. Just go to 
 
 
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/ to read and sign the paper 
(you can also read a condensed version of the article below).

Please forward this email to other scientists within your network or use social 
media as suggested below.

Thanks, Bill

William J. Ripple, Distinguished Professor of Ecology, Oregon State University

To promote the initiative on social media (Facebook and Twitter), please 
consider using the following text:

The 
#ScientistsWarningToHumanity
 is speaking out about the climate emergency. If you are a scientist you can 
support this new initiative by sharing this and adding your signature here: 
 
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

Or

Scientists can support the 
#ScientistsWarningToHumanity
 climate emergency initiative by sharing this and adding your signature here: 
 
 
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

Or

I just signed the 
#ScientistsWarningToHumanity
 climate emergency initiative. If you are a scientist you can support this new 
initiative by sharing this and adding your signature here: 
 
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency (Condensed Version)
William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome,  scientist 
signatories from xxx countries
We scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any great 
existential threat. In this paper, we present a suite of graphical vital signs 
of climate change over the last 40 years. Results show greenhouse gas emissions 
are still rising, with increasingly damaging effects. With few exceptions, we 
are largely failing to address this predicament. The climate crisis has arrived 
and is accelerating faster than many scientists expected. It is more severe 
than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity. We 
suggest six critical and interrelated steps that governments and the rest of 
humanity can take to lessen the worst effects of climate change, covering 1) 
Energy, 2) Short-lived pollutants, 3) Nature, 4) Food, 5) Economy, and 6) 
Population. Mitigating and adapting to climate change entails transformations 
in the ways we govern, manage, feed, and fulfill material and energy 
requirements. We are encouraged by a recent global surge of concern. 
Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. The Pope issued 
an encyclical on climate change. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits 
are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding 
change. As scientists, we urge widespread use of our vital signs and anticipate 
that graphical indicators will better allow policymakers and the public to 
understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities 
to alleviate climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, 
with social and ecological justice, promises greater human wellbeing in the 
long-run than business as usual. We believe that prospects will be greatest if 
policy makers and the rest of humanity promptly respond to our warning and 
declaration of a climate emergency, and act to sustain life on planet Earth, 
our only home.

William J. Ripple email: 
scientistswarn...@oregonstate.edu







To

[ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other scientists to sign this letter

2019-08-20 Thread Wim Burmeister 

  
  

  Hello,
  I transmit this initiative for those who feel that there is
  also life outside reciprocal space and and not only scientist
  in specialist disciplines have a responsibility in real space.
  
  The graphs in the paper mentioned below are sufficiently
  explicit to understand that there is a big problem.
  Best wishes
  Wim
   
  Dear Colleague,
We are inviting you and all scientists to sign our new in-press
BioScience  paper "World Scientists' Warning of a
  Climate Emergency" which we want to present to world
leaders.

The article is short and can be read in fewer than eight
minutes. Just go to  http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
to read and sign the paper (you can also read a condensed
version of the article below).

Please forward this email to other scientists within your
network or use social media as suggested below. 
    
Thanks, Bill  
  
  
William J. Ripple, Distinguished Professor of Ecology, Oregon
State University

To promote the initiative on social media (Facebook and
  Twitter), please consider using the following text:

The #ScientistsWarningToHumanity is
speaking out about the climate emergency. If you are a scientist
you can support this new initiative by sharing this and adding
your signature here: http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/


Or

Scientists can support the #ScientistsWarningToHumanity
climate emergency initiative by sharing this and adding your
signature here:  http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

Or

I just signed the #ScientistsWarningToHumanity climate emergency initiative. If you are
a scientist you can support this new initiative by sharing this
and adding your signature here: http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
   
   World

Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency (Condensed

  Version) 
   William J. Ripple, Christopher
  Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome,  scientist signatories from xxx
  countries 
  We

  scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of
  any great existential threat. In this paper, we present a
  suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the last
  40 years. Results show greenhouse gas emissions are still
  rising, with increasingly damaging effects. With few
  exceptions, we are largely failing to address this
  predicament. The climate crisis has arrived and is
  accelerating faster than many scientists expected. It is more
  severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and
  the fate of humanity. We suggest six critical and interrelated
  steps that governments and the rest of humanity can take to
  lessen the worst effects of climate change, covering 1)
  Energy, 2) Short-lived pollutants, 3) Nature, 4) Food, 5)
  Economy, and 6) Population. Mitigating and adapting to climate
  change entails transformations in the ways we govern, manage,
  feed, and fulfill material and energy requirements. We are
  encouraged by a recent global surge of concern. Governmental
  bodies are making climate emergency declarations. The Pope
  issued an encyclical on climate change. Schoolchildren are
  striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts.
  Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change. As
  scientists, we urge widespread use of our vital signs and
  anticipate that graphical indicators will better allow
  policymakers and the public to understand the magnitude of
  this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities to
  alleviate climate change. The good news is that such
  transformative change, with social and ecological justice,
  promises greater human wellbeing in the long-run than business
  as usual. We believe that prospects will be greatest if policy
  makers and the rest of humanity promptly respond to our
  warning and declaration of a climate emergency, and act to
  sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.
   
  William J. Ripple email:
  scientistswarn...@oregonstate.edu
   
   
   
   

  



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1