In the wake of the recent revelation that more than 31,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, stating that there is no scientific proof of global warming, liberals have been going absolutely bananas trying every excuse they can think of to make people believe that the petition is somehow bogus and Al Gore’s mythical “consensus” of 2,500 scientists is true.
Many of them have stopped by here and taken up valuable cyberspace (what do they think this is, a renewable resource?) with their illogical rantings.
In light of this, I thought it might be a good idea to revisit the topic and take a closer look at Dr. Robinson’s petition project.
First off, it’s not funded by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, but is run by volunteers as a separate project, funded by anyone who wishes to contribute. Liberals may be tempted to point out that many of the funders are (gasp) conservatives who don’t believe in global warming. This is a bit like pointing out that the omelet was made with (gasp) eggs. Nonetheless, I’m sure checks from George Soros, Al Gore and the Daily Kos would be graciously cashed the same as anyone else’s. Any takers?
Second, Dr. Arthur Robinson has participated in writing papers and working on projects with his sons, Professor Zachary Robinson, a chemist and doctor of veterinary medicine; and Professor Noah Robinson, doctor of chemistry and educator. Together, the father and sons have written, among other things, reviews of climate change science. Note that reviews are not research, but articles that discuss other people’s research. I say this because several liberals have implied that fathers and sons cannot possibly work ethically on scientific essays together, and they like to point out that the essay accompanying the petition packet has not been peer reviewed. So far as I know, reviews are not generally themselves “reviewed,” but hey, no standard too standard to toss out when it suits a liberal.
Third, the implication that these 31,000 aren’t “real” scientists. A) Yeah-huh, they are too! (Sorry to dumb that response down, but I’m addressing liberals here.) B) This survey was sent out to scientists, without an adjective, not just to “climate” scientists. It is notably easier to find “climate” scientists in your group of agenda supporters if, as in the case of the U.N., you’ve gone through the guest list and only invited “climate” scientists who you think support your agenda into the club. C) There was no requirement that in order to sign the petition, one must have specifically published research papers on global warming. But if the standard for getting involved in the global warming discussion is that one must be a “climate” scientist and have published his own research, then Al Gore better give back that Nobel prize and start refunding everyone who bought a ticket to his mockumentary.
Fourth, so who are these people who signed this petition? Here’s the breakdown, from www.petitionproject.org:
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)
1. Atmosphere (578 )
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58 )
V) Astrophysics (25)2. Earth (2,148 )
I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)3. Environment (971)
I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)Computers & Math (903)
1. Computer Science (217)
2. Math (686)
I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)Physics & Aerospace (5,691)
1. Physics (5,106)
I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)2. Aerospace (585)
I) Aerospace Engineering (585)
Chemistry (4,796)
1. Chemistry ( 3,156)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)
1. Biochemistry (768 )
I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)2. Biology (1,365)
I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)3. Agriculture (791)
I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)Medicine (3,069)
1. Medical Science (726)
2. Medicine (2,343)
General Engineering & General Science (9,992)
1. General Engineering (9,751)
I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)2. General Science (241)
If anything, one would think that opening a discussion of global warming to more scientists from many different fields could only be a benefit to our knowledge on this topic, as the different specialties could offer new perspectives on the facts and help fill in details that might not be readily obvious to other specialists. But open inquiry is not part of the liberal mindset, and that was never the purpose of the U.N. conferences on climate, at which MIT scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen reported seeing researchers being bullied by political functionaries into accepting the predetermined “conclusions,” even where the researchers disagreed.
Lindzen isn’t the only scientist to criticize the IPCC. Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute quit the IPCC because he and a colleague were “at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our specialty.”
IPCC member John Christy is also a known skeptic of the global warming orthodoxy, and has been distinguished by the honor of being publicly attacked by Al Gore for his troubles.
JunkScience.com’s Steven Milloy conducted a survey back in November of 345 U.S. scientists involved in the IPCC. From the 54 respondents to his survey, less then half believed that an increase of 1 degree Celsius in the global average temperature was undesirable. The rest said such a change was either desirable, desirable for some or too difficult to assess. About 14 percent said the ideal climate was cooler than at present. Most, 60 percent, said there was no such thing as an ideal climate!
(Oh, and speaking directly to the liberals’ fantasy about the amazing, unassailable brain power of the IPCC scientists, Milloy also reported that several respondents to his survey wanted to know what the phrase “climate change” meant, even though that is part of the IPCC’s name.)
Robinson’s petition is what it is: A document signed by 31,000 intelligent, scientifically trained people who aren’t buying what Al Gore’s shoveling.
For more on how the petition project was conducted, go to the Petition Project site.
******************************************************
Like that? Try this:
Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor
Subscribe to the RSS feed
But the petition is all self-reported. It’s not like Robinson has some “Scientist Mailing List” and is only soliciting people on that list. It’s an open web page. Do they follow-up on the “scientists” that send in a signature? I didn’t see any claims that they do so. They certainly don’t ask for people to send in any proof of degree or expertise.
This petition reeks of mendacity.
You are incorrect on all points. You must not have looked very closely at their web site. From what the organizers have stated, there is in fact a mailing list, and this petition was delivered almost entirely via snail mail. From the web site:
This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.
Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.
A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.
Petition project volunteers evaluate each signer’s credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer’s name to the petition list.
Additionally, from their FAQ page:
5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?
Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.
In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.
6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?
Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization.
7. Are any of the listed signers dead?
In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an “*” is placed beside the name of the signatory.
So they do apparently have a procedure to weed out the jokers. The only thing I have yet to hear that “reeks of mendacity” is the effort to discredit the organizers and signers of this petition.
Comment by Praxxus — June 23, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
If they’re so gosh-darn thorough, why do they have ninety-nine signatories whose first name is apparently “Professor?”
Professor Anderson
Professor Bennett
Professor Bigelow, PhD
Professor Boa The Chu, PhD
Professor Borsari
Professor Bozlee, PhD
Professor Bratzatt, PhD
Professor Burchett, PhD
Professor Carlson
Professor Chen, PhD
Professor Choi, PhD
Professor Cole, PhD
Professor Cole, PhD
Professor Corley
Professor Cubre
Professor Dannenberg, PhD
Professor Dimeglio
Professor Doxtader, PhD
Professor Dudt, PhD
Professor Dudt, PhD
Professor Dutta, PhD
Professor Ejire, PhD
Professor Enyeart
Professor Estalote, PhD
Professor Findorff
Professor Frey
Professor Gennaro, PhD
Professor Guldenzopf, PhD
Professor Hamilton
Professor Hand, PhD
Professor Eric Harms
Professor Haycox
Professor Hietpas, PhD
Professor House
Professor Joerz
Professor Kilpinen, PhD
Professor Kingery, PhD
Professor Knightes, PhD
Professor Kongpricha, PhD
Professor Kraft, PhD
Professor Krivak
Professor Kunz, PhD
Professor Langeland, PhD
Professor Lucelari, PhD
Professor Marsh, PhD
Professor Martin
Professor McAneny, PhD
Professor McKisson
Professor McMonigal, PhD
Professor Minkin, PhD
Professor Morris
Professor Morrison, PhD
Professor Morrow, PhD
Professor Moseley
Professor Nelson
Professor Osborn
Professor Oskoorouchi, PhD
Professor Otu, PhD
Professor Oyelola, PhD
Professor Panebianco
Professor Pine, PhD
Professor Polinger, PhD
Professor Ramers, PhD
Professor Reader
Professor Reid, PhD
Professor Rodenburg, PhD
Professor Rostek, PhD
Professor Saghafi, PhD
Professor Sawyer
Professor Schlichting, PhD
Professor Scofield, PhD
Professor Seleem, PhD
Professor Shapiro
Professor Sharkey, PhD
Professor Sitarski, PhD
Professor Skluzacek, PhD
Professor Smithrud, PhD
Professor Snavely
Professor Sparks, PhD
Professor Sroub
Professor Thorleifson
Professor Torgenson
Professor Torres
Professor Troupe, PhD
Professor Vandemerwe, PhD
Professor Vohs, PhD
Professor Wanliss, PhD
Professor Weinert, PhD
Professor Wells, PhD
Professor Wescott, PhD
Professor Whisenand, PhD
Professor White
Professor Woller
Professor Woodworth
Professor Wynn, PhD
Professor Yapuncich, PhD
Professor Yost, PhD
Professor Zamor
Professor Zbuzek, PhD
*sniff sniff* Yup. Still smell the mendacity.
Well is your name really “Praxxus”? Just one word, like Madonna or Cher? Maybe I should rethink letting you post here. Or … I could simply let you present your name the way you want it presented. … Like they did at the petition project for the 99 folks who would like to be known as “Professor” So-and-So. That smell isn’t mendacity, it’s desperation, and it’s coming from the left. Even if we were to indulge you, 31,000-99=30,901 signatures still to explain away. This argument is the silliest one yet, unless you actually have some direct proof that these 99 people on your list do not exist or are not professors or that there was some nefarious scheme to pad the list with “Professor So-and-So’s.” If you have such evidence, then please produce it.
Sincerely,
Namor, Prince of Atlantis.
Comment by Praxxus — June 24, 2008 @ 11:09 am
99 out of 31,000? That’s such an easy oversight for that many names. I mean with all the people that read these postings who would have thought one person would have come on here and nitpicked about 99 names out of 31,000? Oh well I guess every small odd thing has a chance of being found.
Comment by Bryant — June 28, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Source Watch has a particularly negative view of the list. Who the heck to believe!
Well, OK, let me put it in starkest possible terms for you:
Arthur Robinson, who started the petition project, is a right-wing crank who wanted to throw a wrench in the spokes of the global warming bicycle (really a corn-fueled private jet at this point, but metaphor, metaphor …). He has never pretended to be otherwise, and his methods are all spelled out on his web site for the world to see. His project was simply to gather names of people with scientific training who agree with him that man-made global warming is bunk.
Source Watch is founded by the Center for Media and Democracy, which bills itself as “a non-profit, non-partisan, public interest organization that strengthens participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, and by promoting media literacy and citizen journalism,” is actually a left-wing spin machine itself dedicated to attacking conservatives whenever their viewpoint happens to surface in the media. The Center for Media and Democracy was founded by John Stauber, a former employee of Jeremy Rifkin, who bills himself as an “investigative journalist” but who has actually spent his entire adult lifetime as an advocate for far-left causes (“peace, social justice,” i.e. anti-Americanism, Marxism). He gained some notoriety a few years ago when, during the mad cow scare, he worked with PR firm Fenton Communications to try to persuade the American public through the media that chronic wasting disease (CWD), a well-known illness in domestic deer, was a mutation and precursor of a mad-cow epidemic in this country: “By the time we see people confirmed as dying of CWD, those deaths are just going to be the tip of the iceberg,” he told one news outlet. This, of course, was a lie. In an interview with Derek Jensen in 2000, Stauber conceded: “Everyone, myself included, who’s trying to get an idea across, market a product, or influence other citizens uses techniques that fit the definition of public relations.”
So, who to believe? Both sides have strong, opposed opinions. But it’s pretty clear to me which side is being honest about what it’s up to.
Comment by Bill — July 1, 2008 @ 9:47 am