Global Warming Consensus Attacked

[JaJae]

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

StreetInsider.com - ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

That's a pretty big number including over nine thousand PhDs willing to put their names on this. I wonder how many more were afraid to. The purpose of this is to show there is no consensus in the scientific community. I think 31k names is a good start. The release of this list took place this morning in Washington DC.

[JaJae]

Human Rights, Science and the Energy Emergency - HUMAN EVENTS

Today, we announce that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists -- over 9,000 of whom hold PhD degrees in relevant scientific fields -- have signed a petition to the U.S. government that states:

The people of the United States find themselves in an economic crisis caused, in large part, by energy shortages and rapidly increasing prices for energy.

Yet, the United Nations and other vocal political interests are urging the U.S. to enact new laws that will sharply reduce U.S. energy production and raise energy prices even higher. These interests claim that continued U.S. use of hydrocarbon fuels -- which account for 85% of U.S. energy supplies -- will destroy the Earth’s climate and cause many environmental catastrophes.

What should the U.S government do in response to this situation? The answer is provided by science, by economics, and by the basic principles of human rights.

The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in a civilization based upon the achievements of science and technology, include the rights to obtain access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of the right of access to the most basic of all technologies -- the right of access to energy. This right, we recognize, means we have the right to purchase energy, though the government does not owe us a supply of it. To the contrary, the government owes us an obligation to remove itself as an obstacle to our access to energy unless there is a reason our nation’s security is endangered by it. And there is no such reason.

The so-called “global warming” measures advocated by the UN and others create obstacles, rather than eliminating them.

Our right to access to energy and removal of government obstructions have been significantly abridged.During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

This unfavorable economic environment has caused the transfer of many industries abroad and cessation of growth of many others. Nowhere is this damaging trend more evident than in our energy industries, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30% of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity.

Moreover, the transfer of U.S. industries abroad has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

These difficulties were entirely unnecessary. The hydrocarbon resources -- coal, oil, natural gas, and other hydrocarbon reserves -- and the nuclear energy resources of the United States provide abundant fuel for low-cost energy in the U.S. for many future centuries. Moreover, the necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. There is absolutely no technical or resource reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy.

Now, a new and oppressive further infringement upon our human rights has been proposed. Laws are being considered that would sharply restrict our access to hydrocarbon energy. These proposed new restrictions of our human rights are being justified by the claim that continued hydrocarbon energy production -- with its concomitant carbon dioxide release -- will destroy the climate of the Earth and cause catastrophic disasters throughout the world. These claims are based upon the publications of the United Nations -- an organization whose prestige would be greatly increased by world taxation and regulation of hydrocarbon energy.

The scientific hypothesis known as “human-caused global warming” -- which is the basis of these United Nations claims -- has, however, been discredited and invalidated by unequivocal experimental research data and sound scientific interpretations of that data. This is attested to by the more than 31,000 U.S. scientists who have signed this petition.

It is tragic that the current shortage of low cost energy in the U.S. has been allowed to occur. In order to correct this problem and to assure that it does not recur, the current high level of taxation, regulation, and susceptibility to litigation of U.S. energy industries must be reduced, so that free enterprise -- working with private capital and without tax funds or subsidies -- can build needed new U.S. hydrocarbon and nuclear power capacity as quickly as possible.

It may be that technologies other than hydrocarbon and nuclear are also practical sources of abundant, low-cost energy. This is best determined in the free market. Elimination of all tax subsidies and marked reduction of taxation, regulation, and susceptibility to litigation of all energy-production industries will allow economically healthy competition. This will ease the current energy crisis and provide abundant low-cost energy for future prosperity.

In order to alleviate the current energy emergency in the United States and prevent future such emergencies, it is essential for the governmental restrictions that have caused this emergency to be removed. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce the low cost, abundant energy that is required for their prosperity. Environmental science, as evidenced by the signatories of this petition, favors this freedom.

Very interesting take on this. Basically they're saying there is no scientific proof of global warming. Our energy costs are skyrocketing for no good reason. We have the ability to change that.

[motivez]

Are you saying there's no data backing up the fact that the globe is warming, or that there's no data proving humans are responsible?

Because those are two very different arguments.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Are you saying there's no data backing up the fact that the globe is warming, or that there's no data proving humans are responsible?

Because those are two very different arguments.

Well technically there's both. We haven't had an increase in global temperature for the past 10 years. But despite that, I was referring to the notion that there's no data proving humans are responsible and that what has occurred isn't completely natural. All we have are opinions. So what they're trying to do here is break through the global warming alarmism and bring it back to science for the economic benefit of America.

[nbiggershaft]

Bwwhwhahahahaaa
Here is where you can join the petition if you own a printer:
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[nbiggershaft]

hahah, I'll admit I am copy pasting from 'over there' but this is funny

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


Frederick Seitz, a former tobacco company scientist and former National Academy of Sciences president, writes and circulates a letter asking scientists to sign a petition calling upon the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was authored by an obscure group by the name of “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” [Seitz, 1998] Seitz includes in his letter a report arguing that carbon dioxide emissions do not pose a threat to the global climate. The report—which is not peer reviewed—is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The organizers of the petition will claim that some 17,000 scientists signed the petition. But it is subsequently discovered that few credentialed climate scientists added their signature to the list. Moreover, the petition contains the names of several fictional characters. The magazine Scientific American analyzes a random sampling of the signers and concludes that only about one percent of the petition signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field actually do. And in a highly unusual move, the National Academy of Sciences issues a statement disavowing Seitz’s petition and disassociating the academy from the PNAS-formatted paper. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007, pp. 16 ]

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Bwwhwhahahahaaa
Here is where you can join the petition if you own a printer:
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you read the PDF? You have to write to them why you feel you should be included as well as provide pertinent educational and professional reasons.

"If you think you may qualify, please sign and give your reasons for thinking so. We carefully review the signed petitions when they arrive and make certain that the retained signatories are appropriate."

You can't just print it out and mail it an and expect to be added to the list.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

hahah, I'll admit I am copy pasting from 'over there' but this is funny

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


Frederick Seitz, a former tobacco company scientist and former National Academy of Sciences president, writes and circulates a letter asking scientists to sign a petition calling upon the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was authored by an obscure group by the name of “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” [Seitz, 1998] Seitz includes in his letter a report arguing that carbon dioxide emissions do not pose a threat to the global climate. The report—which is not peer reviewed—is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The organizers of the petition will claim that some 17,000 scientists signed the petition. But it is subsequently discovered that few credentialed climate scientists added their signature to the list. Moreover, the petition contains the names of several fictional characters. The magazine Scientific American analyzes a random sampling of the signers and concludes that only about one percent of the petition signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field actually do. And in a highly unusual move, the National Academy of Sciences issues a statement disavowing Seitz’s petition and disassociating the academy from the PNAS-formatted paper. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007, pp. 16 ]

Interesting...

[motivez]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

hahah, I'll admit I am copy pasting from 'over there' but this is funny

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


Frederick Seitz, a former tobacco company scientist and former National Academy of Sciences president, writes and circulates a letter asking scientists to sign a petition calling upon the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was authored by an obscure group by the name of “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” [Seitz, 1998] Seitz includes in his letter a report arguing that carbon dioxide emissions do not pose a threat to the global climate. The report—which is not peer reviewed—is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The organizers of the petition will claim that some 17,000 scientists signed the petition. But it is subsequently discovered that few credentialed climate scientists added their signature to the list. Moreover, the petition contains the names of several fictional characters. The magazine Scientific American analyzes a random sampling of the signers and concludes that only about one percent of the petition signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field actually do. And in a highly unusual move, the National Academy of Sciences issues a statement disavowing Seitz’s petition and disassociating the academy from the PNAS-formatted paper. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007, pp. 16 ]

Former tobacco company scientist?

I guess he's gone from, "No, our products don't cause cancer." to "No, carbon emissions don't contribute to the warming of our planet."

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

hahah, I'll admit I am copy pasting from 'over there' but this is funny

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


Frederick Seitz, a former tobacco company scientist and former National Academy of Sciences president, writes and circulates a letter asking scientists to sign a petition calling upon the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was authored by an obscure group by the name of “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” [Seitz, 1998] Seitz includes in his letter a report arguing that carbon dioxide emissions do not pose a threat to the global climate. The report—which is not peer reviewed—is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The organizers of the petition will claim that some 17,000 scientists signed the petition. But it is subsequently discovered that few credentialed climate scientists added their signature to the list. Moreover, the petition contains the names of several fictional characters. The magazine Scientific American analyzes a random sampling of the signers and concludes that only about one percent of the petition signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field actually do. And in a highly unusual move, the National Academy of Sciences issues a statement disavowing Seitz’s petition and disassociating the academy from the PNAS-formatted paper. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007, pp. 16 ]

One has to consider though - in order to become an accredited climate scientist, do you have to buy into their theory?

Just a thought.