[jolic]

Few of the people on the list have any, at least obvious, position outside of their field. The purpose of seeking input is to make sure that this isn't 72 "climate change deniers" in fringe positions or with their own "custom" organisations.

[willstrafach]

I understand what you are trying to say, but you might want to check out the full list. It contains people who have various strong opinions on different nuanced security related topics, yet all agree regarding this. I think that is why it is strange to brush aside the signatories.

[Analemma_]

> It contains people who have various strong opinions on different nuanced security related topics, yet all agree regarding this.

But it takes a while to verify this if you're not already familiar with it (I'd argue that's a reason why they shouldn't have published the article to begin with, but w/e)

[jolic]

The public editor wouldn't know any of that. It's pretty much thier job to not take someone at thier word. Even if he could verify each person's contribution, their position in the field and the relevance of these facts to this issue he still can't be sure that this isn't e.g. some fight between two sides and that this group isn't in minority to 172 other experts that think differently. It's out-of-band verification if you so will.