Posts
Can 31,487 scientists be wrong? That’s the number of
scientists who have signed the “Global Warming Petition Project.” Of course,
those who want us to repeal the Industrial Revolution and redistribute wealth often insist that anthropogenic global warming is settled science and that all scientists
believe it. Link here.
So, the 31, 487 signed a petition that reads thusly:
There
is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases 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 project website adds this:
“These
scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming
hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the
basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage
both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
How do the signatories compare to the scientists who are
involved in the United Nations study of global warming? Glad you asked:
In PhD
scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists
than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large
number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among
American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming
hypothesis rather than in favor of it.
Now, you can come out of your apocalypse bunker and breathe
some fresh air.
14 comments:
"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.”
It is refreshing to hear that some scientists (in this case, many) understand concepts they learned in elementary school. They've put them to work in questioning a radical hypothesis designed to consolidate more power for the political class, activists and multinational corporate interests.
No doubt, the danger of evaporation is the next IPCC discovery and the EPA will classify water vapor as a pollutant, too.
I am enjoying the steady progression of evidence that exposes this Climate Change hoax. And none too soon.
Follow the money.
Carbon Dioxide is plant food! The HORROR!! The horror...
Wow, this seems petty desperate.
For context we can go to a 2009 article when the petition was over 30,000. And apparently the petition has been collecting names since 1998. So apparently they've added some 1000 names in the last 7 or 8 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
----
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113) Climatology (39) Meteorology (341) Astronomy (59) Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping 0.5%.
The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
---
There are also apparently actual research scientists who believe in young earth creationism, that the earth is a biblical 6000 years old rather than 4.5 billion years. So we can agree even being a scientist doesn't disable your ability to compartmentalize your knowledge. Incidentally it may be Vice President Pence is in this crowd from speeches he gave to congress, also denying evolution.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2016/11/10/vp-elect-mike-pence-does-not-accept-evolution-heres-why-that-matters/#383017b515a7
Finally the petition itself:
----
The petition reads:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 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.”
----
This is certainly the most extreme denial you can get. I would think poorly of anyone who signed it. If you can claim this, rejecting evolution would seem a trivial additional accomplishment.
Credentialism is a rare bird in the climate lobby, trotted out occasionally to discredit the views of individuals like engineers, meteorologists, and agronomists.
Amusing, when one considers the former head of the IPCC is a railroad engine driver and part-time pornographer. Or Aswad Al-Goreza, who was a law school failure, got a D in the undergrad geology class commonly known among science faculty as "Rocks for Jocks", and claimed the Earth's core was hotter than the Sun. And, of course, Leonardo diCaprio is a high school dropout with a GED.
But everyone knows the real agenda:
Prior to Cancun, the IPCC's Edenhofer observed that "The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... [O]ne must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."
--- O Edenhofer, Economist, Co-chair IPCC Working Group III
Thing is, Ares,that these 31,487 are NOT threatening to sue anyone for disagreeing with them. Micheal Mann IS.
We live in the infinite. We use science to explain as much of it as possible. Our understanding gets better through time, but can never encompass it. To encompass or "settle" infinity is the province of the divine, of which we are not.
Sam L. said... Thing is, Ares, that these 31,487 are NOT threatening to sue anyone for disagreeing with them. Micheal Mann IS.
Probably because they don't care what's true and accurate.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311495-court-climate-scientist-can-sue-conservative-writers-over-alleged
---
Both writers in 2012 compared Mann, a professor at Penn State who published research on the changes to the climate going back centuries, to Sandusky, a former Penn State football coach who sexually abused numerous minors.
---
ames said... We live in the infinite. We use science to explain as much of it as possible. Our understanding gets better through time, but can never encompass it. To encompass or "settle" infinity is the province of the divine, of which we are not.
A good point, and diligent scientists would prefer to keep studying the earth for 500 years before offering a conclusion. But when humans are doing things they can't undo the prudent policy ought to be caution.
If we burn less fossil fuels now, and in 50 years we conclude atmopsheric CO2 as high as 1200ppm is "harmless" and even net beneficial, then future generations can still thank us for leaving them more one-time resources.
For me its very simple. There is not enough "cheap fossil fuels" to enable 7.5 billion people to live like Americans, much less our ever growing descendants in 30 to 100 years. So we're in overshoot and its our problem more than anyone else's and our denial seems much greater because of this.
Liberals themselves would quickly shift into denial once they discover a price to doing the right thing that they personally have to pay. Its more that modern economics has hidden costs with ever growing collective debt, which demands the future always be bigger than the past, so when you've indebted the future, you can't be honest about what you're expecting your future self to pay that you yourself now are not willing to pay.
Mann, whose "hockey stick" has been debunked, is a dendromancer, using cherry-picked ancient tree rings to predict the future climate. At least with chicken entrails, you get to eat.
AO,
You may be right and perhaps caution is the way to proceed, but there is no way to "know" any of this. Since there is no real way for either the pro or con to know the future it remains a speculative argument.
In the way back time humans huddled around the fires in their (fictional) caves and listened to their wise elders warn against going outside because the saber toothed tigers would eat you. Well a lot of the young people said that's bunk we're going and did. Outside they found wonderous things and built a new society completely unknown to the world. Of course 8 out of ten that originally emerged from the cave WERE eaten by saber toothed tigers, but that was mostly ignored and forgotten (especially after all the saber toothed tigers were killed). Though this may have happened the result could not be foreseen.
trigger warning said... Mann, whose "hockey stick" has been debunked, is a dendromancer, using cherry-picked ancient tree rings to predict the future climate. At least with chicken entrails, you get to eat.
I see, if you can't defend an indefensible petition, attack the data. But the definition of "debunked" must have changed. No one doubts that any single historic reconstruction by localizes proxies will be imperfect, but as best I can tell, all the improvements to the original modeling have confirmed the initial reconstruction, and expanded it with more proxies.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
James said... AO, You may be right and perhaps caution is the way to proceed, but there is no way to "know" any of this.
I agree necessity is the mother of invention, so it may be in some universes the most prudent course of action in life is to jump off as many cliffs as you can find, just in case you learn how to fly by flapping your arms long enough when you really need it. (And now we know flapping isn't needed, just wing suits, and enough speed.)
Our past success is almost shocking, and so if we've survived free 17 sequential cliffs, why not believe the 18th ahead we'll finally learn how to create dense free and clean energy from dilithium crystals and be on our way to starting star fleet in 2080.
The argument of technophiles is compelling, and and the alternatives are only attractive with their own false hype, that living on daily sunshine can be as easy as living on saved up 100 million year old sunshine.
AO,
Well it'll have to be one of those things, but I'll still be this:
https://youtu.be/uHXtKRCqZCY
James said... AO, Well it'll have to be one of those things, but I'll still be this...
Nice, at least we all have music in common, whatever our politics.
----
Yeah, he's one of those who knows that life is just a leap of faith
Spread your arms and hold your breath and always trust your cape
----
Some 20 years ago I wrote a poem for our predicament, but never found a tune for it.
---
High upon a tree stands a nest,
where a baby bird once stood.
Now that baby plunges down,
pushed from the nest by its mother.
There's no going back to that nest,
only flying or dying.
The longer it falls, the faster.
And its wings flap wildly,
yet finding new grace with each stroke.
The baby does not see the ground;
each feather only knows the wind.
Flying and falling feel the same to the young;
How will it learn the difference?
---
Post a Comment