Al Gore and global warm-mongers have won many converts with their claim that 2,500 scientific reviewers of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report constitutes a “consensus” among scientists that man-made warming is destroying Earth.
UPDATE 09-03-08: Liberals have been spinning this story like crazy. See my take on their efforts.
Click here.
Not only have many of those reviewers made it known that they disagree with the U.N. conclusions, but now there is a petition circulated by Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, signed by more than 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming. The petition states, in part:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s.
Robinson held a press conference earlier this month. Although members of the media and Congress were invited, attendance was light.
Robinson points out that over the past 150 years, scientists have found that global temperatures have been predicted with 79 percent accuracy by the sunspot index, which precedes climate changes by about 10 years. CO2, by comparison, has been only 22 percent accurate, and that number has rapidly declined in the past decade as temperatures have dipped and CO2 has continued to rise.
In fact, 70 percent of the Earth’s warming in the past hundred years occurred before 1940, while nearly all of humanity’s industrial emissions have occurred after that date. Since 1940, the climate has only risen 0.2 Celsius.
Robinson notes that the U.N. has never produced any direct evidence that mankind is causing warming, but that the IPCC report is only a summary, written by a handful of authors, of discussions among scientists invited to a U.N. conference.
Subscribe to the RSS feed
No one mentions more water vapour is created when burning oil than CO2. No one mentions water vapour is a much better greenhouse gas. No one mentions airborne particulate from burning fossil fuels allows for the formation of more drops and less rainfall. No one mentions the reflectivity of drop-rich cloud cover and the reduced solar radiation.
Instead you attack some guy named Al Gore and talk about CO2 as if that matters. What matters is the earth is on fire, the view from space is quite alarming. The fact is half the corn crop isn’t in the ground yet.
Predictable weather is the basis for long term crop production. Climate destabilization is the feather that breaks the camel’s back.
Line up your 31,000 scientists and let them agree to disagree with theory, and hopefully they will aslo disagree with the theory that CO2 has no impact. Both sides are theoretical, so jumping onboard either side isn’t scientific.
Just watch the wildfires, extreme changes in weather, and enjoy the end of a long period of climate stability. It will take science to figure out how to increase crop yields while reducing solar radiation.
Good luck.
This is a prime example of the sort of baseless fear-mongering in the global warming movement. No scientific studies, no proof, just assertions about the Earth being “on fire.” (Water vapor from oil, by the way, is insignificant compared with natural sources. You’re right that water vapor is the real main greenhouse gas, but no models used in global warming predictions even take it into account, and no one has suggested that warming is occurring because of “man-made water vapor.” The global warming argument is about CO2, of which man contributes less than 4 percent.) Meanwhile, 31,000 people who know how to gather evidence say man-made global warming has no support, and you’ll just ignore it. Why not just read tea leaves?
Comment by Earl E — May 27, 2008 @ 9:21 am
The climate changes all the time. The better question is, how do we better manage the way climate effects day-to-day life.
Comment by goesdownbitter — May 28, 2008 @ 5:06 am
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), sponsor of the petitiion, is headed by Arthur Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools” and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
This so called Oregon Petition, was circulated in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of persons. The only credentials necessary to sign it was that you must have an undergraduate degree in science. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Robinson’s paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. In reality, neither Robinson’s paper nor OISM’s petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences. Robinson was not even a climate scientist, nor had his paper ever been published.
None of the coauthors had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson’s 22-year-old son, along with two astrophysicists who worked at the George Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank funded by a number of right-wing foundations,
Do you really think the petition is valid? Do you really?
Wow, I better take those one at a time:
1) Eccentricity — good
2) Homeschooling and concerns about public schools — also good
3) Book on nuclear survival — esoteric, but interesting
4) Any science degree holder could sign — very democratic of him, plus at least 9,000 of those who signed have Ph.D.’s
5) Paper used proprietary (!!) Academy of Sciences font (was it Verdana? The villainy!) — and I’ll bet Robinson dresses funny too.
6) Believes more CO2 in the atmosphere may have benefits — other than higher crop yields, smaller deserts, more abundant plant and animal life, possibly fewer hurricanes, gee, it’s kind of hard to imagine what those could possibly be. It apparently worked for the dinosaurs — for millions upon millions of years — not that such a short time span of life on Earth could possibly have anything to teach us.
7) None of his co-authors was a “climate scientist,” unlike Al Gore, who has a bachelor’s degree in government and a few classes from divinity school. (Perhaps that’s actually “climate government.” ) I don’t think I’ve run across anyone with a “climate science” degree. The closest is probably meteorology, but there are only about 81 of those PhD’s running around the U.S., so I’m guessing many of Al Gore’s “consensus” scientists aren’t really qualified either under your standard. In the real world, climate change is the concern of scientists in numerous fields of inquiry, from biology and medicine to, yes, astrophysics.
8 ) They had RIGHT WING funding!!!!!! Well now the whole lot of them are just evil, clearly.
So, do I really think the petition is valid? Do I REALLY? Hmm:
31,000 people with scientific training;
9,000 Ph.D.s;
1 petition;
not a single valid reason to think this petition doesn’t represent a massive repudiation of global warm-mongering.
In answer to your question, then, yes, I REALLY do think this petition is valid. And judging by the panicked repudiations being pumped out by liberal bloggers, so do you guys. …
Comment by brewski — May 30, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
* Oregon Petition:
- http://www.petitionproject.org/
- http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
- http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/20831/0086
- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
Also, they refuse to divulge how many ’scientists’ they sent it to. Estimates range around 500,000. Getting 31,000 dentists, agricultural engineers, genealogists, etc. to respond doesn’t seem so impressive when you view the data in that light. Also, science is not like American Idol – it’s not decided on unverified votes.
Ultimately, the only people persuaded by this petition are the ignorant and those who *want* AGW to be a lie / hoax / mistake.
Notice the mental gymnastics the above sites have to go through to “prove” that 31,000 people with science degrees couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about. Thirty-one thousand respondents out of 500,000 surveys is a response rate of about 6 percent, which is typical for many mail surveys done even by major media industry poll takers. But you’ll also notice that this is a petition, not a study. So of course the people who sign are politically inclined to agree. Go ask your local signature gatherer standing in front of Wal Mart how many people they get typically to sign their petitions. Six percent’s a pretty good return. The major point of this all is that, far from being a “handful of flat-earthers” as warm-mongers like to say, the number of people with scientific education who disbelieve global warming is significant — certainly much greater than indicated by this simple mail survey. That’s important to know because the warm-mongers are always insisting that people without scientific training couldn’t possibly know how to rub two brain cells together and see through the fraud of climate change. (Of course, many of those who insist that are themselves no more qualified than the average high school student to make that judgment, but they make good parrots.)
And speaking of numbers, what the pro-warming crowd never reveals is how only about a dozen of the U.N.’s “consensus” scientists actually read the entire IPCC report before it came out, and half of those disagree with the summary, which is what every media outlet and politician is basing the global warming scare on. Al Gore’s “consensus” of 4,000 scientists is far less impressive when you realize it’s actually only about a half-dozen.
Of course, you are right that science isn’t American Idol — it should be based on facts. So, here’s a fact: There has been NO warming for 10 years, and numerous scientists have predicted that we are entering into a time of global cooling. The logic is clear enough that even Al Gore should be able to follow it: No warming = no warming. Yet, he and the warm-mongers persist. Take a look at the finances of Mr. Gore and the players pushing the “climate crisis.” They all stand to make BIG money by slamming the rest of us with higher taxes, energy shortages and government intrusion in our lives. And take a hard look at WHO is supporting the “climate crisis.” All the major oil and energy companies.
Wake up, people. Global warming is a scam, no matter how many cognitive spin cycles the DailyKos tries to put it through.
Comment by MonoApe — June 18, 2008 @ 6:31 am
consensus politics…
How does the rss feed work so I can get updated on your blog?…
Just click on the RSS icon. It should take you to a page where you can add the feed to your bookmarks.
Trackback by consensus politics — July 3, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Yes this petition is valid. You can’t get around the fact theat there are 31,000 people with science backgrounds who have signed this thing. I have BSc and Masters degrees and I would love to place my name on that petition. There are far too many holes in the climate change theory. Since 2006, ice core studies have revealed that the earth’s temperature changes before CO2 levels change, by several hundred years. Therefore, by definition, CO2 cannot be a cause of climate change, it must be an effect.
Now all we have to do is control our climate by altering the output of the sun and variations in Earth’s orbit. No biggy.
Comment by Dwight — July 25, 2008 @ 10:30 am
The comments on this article are typical of the global warming extremists. For some unknown reason these people buy into the hype about global warming and then defend it with a passion. However since they don’t have any facts, they defend it the only way they know how, by attacking the people involved. Anyone who denies it is treated like a holocaust denier, accused of being paid by oil companies, accused of believing other conspiracies like aliens and the like, and has any other irrelevant fact that might sound dubious thrown at them. Without scientific evidence these people have got nothing, and they don’t even believe the 31,000 scientists who disagreed, so what is the point arguing.
Hopefully this will all blow over very soon before it’s too late, and brain dead schemes like emissions trading won’t be implemented. I certainly don’t want to be paying more for energy just because some politician says I am killing the planet.
Comment by Jarryd — July 30, 2008 @ 7:19 am