To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
.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 .5%.
The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.
When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.
The Petition's Sordid Beginnings
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.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
An Unverifiable Mess
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.
For example,
"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]
"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.
And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.
Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.
Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.
Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8167211.stm
Most everyone understands (including the Republicans) that being energy independent from foreign oil helps the economy, and helps our National security. Furthermore, why should we send money to countries that sponsor international terrorism? Why be held hostage to the fluctuations of the price of oil based on the whims of some foreign religious fanatics?
So while we have this Democratic majority we should pass as many laws as possible, right down to building codes that insist on renewable energy in all new building projects and structures.
The Waxman-Markey bill DOES give the Federal government power of buidling codes in the entire US. It also effects sales of existing homes: if your home does not meet the California green codes, which is what they've indicated they'll implement, you'll have to upgrade it before you sell. That'll be cheap.
seems the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere the colder it gets.
here's a q for anyone:
is it warmer, cooler or about the same where you live?
everyone i've talked to says it's been about the same or cooler over the past year or so.
anyone?
containing particulate material. NASA has been tracking the spread of this volcanic material in the northern hemisphere.
When such an event occurs, if massive enough, the skies above are awash with different colors
around sunrise and sunset.
The Sun, Moon and Stars may even change color as well as the sky itself as it happened in 1991.
Spaceweather.com July 1, 2009
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=01&month=07&year=2009
Sulfur Dioxide Plume:
http://spaceweather.com/images2009/27jun09/gome2_anim.gif
The government has spent 79 BILLION DOLLARS trying to propaganize this issue. http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
Barbara Boxer is drooling over the possiblity of hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax revenue. Dems in general can't wait to gain control over the energy sector.
It's healthy to have deniers. We may save you from yourself. Sorry if it cuts into your gravy train.
Al Gore is spewing the same propaganda techniques that popularized the Iraq invasion/conquest. Not surprising, Goldman Sachs stands to make billions from Cap N Trade. Cap N Trade is a job killer.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html
It's his DVD being shown to schoolchildren around the world in the name of "education".
He is the one, on behalf of the climate scientists that he's always quoting, who predicts massive hurricanes.
You want a "verifiable fact"? Fine, take a look at this:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
•Update: July 22, 2009 including dissipated TYPHOON Molave in the WPAC
On the heels of the record inactive years of 2007 and 2008, current 2009 activity has fallen well behind the pace of the previous 2-years. The ACE to date is the lowest since 1998 and only 40% of the previous 10-year average. Record inactivity continues and has so far shown no signs of abating.
Can you post a link to the scientists, their backgrounds and qualifications, for each of the IPCC's working groups?
I've read different totals on a variety of sites.
I have been unable to find information about these scientists on the IPCC site itself.
A link would also be appreciated for the number of scientists by their individual fields.
Thanks.
Pretty simple.
Here's a couple:
Gabriele C. Hegerl - here's a list of her publications: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/ghegerl/publications.html
Francis W. Zwiers - here's a list of her publications: http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/people/fzwiers.shtml
Not hard, very transparent, easy to verify.
Why is that?
You are critizing the petition signers because, according to you, not enough of them are climate scientists.
That being the case, you should be able to provide us a breakdown of the IPCC's scientists for comparison.
Are you telling us the only way to retrieve this data is for each of us to individually review all of the IPCC's documentation then search for ourselves the names of the scientists encountered?
incorrect.
Greenland was warmer in 1946 than it is now.
Extreme melting in Greenland.
"The Arctic fauna has followed the climatic change, and both fishes and fowl are now found much farther north than formerly. The southern limit of permanently frozen ground in Asia has moved many kilometres farther north, and the Spitsbergen period of navigation has lengthened considerably."
The number of ice-free days went from an average of 95 days to an average of 175 days.
"This part of the Arctic may, without exaggeration, be said to have experienced a CLIMATIC REVOLUTION."
Date of report: 1946 (H. W. Ahlmann, The Geographical Journal (1946)).
Take a look at the cover of his dvd:
http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al-Gore/dp/B000ICL3KG
Notice the hurricane coming from the smokestack?
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080506160205.aspx
"we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”
WE'RE SEEING consequences right?
Well, if a single hurricane is a consequence of global warming, then why is tropical cyclone activity at HISTORIC lows?
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
•Update: July 22, 2009 including dissipated TYPHOON Molave in the WPAC
On the heels of the record inactive years of 2007 and 2008, current 2009 activity has fallen well behind the pace of the previous 2-years. The ACE to date is the lowest since 1998 and only 40% of the previous 10-year average. Record inactivity continues and has so far shown no signs of abating.
Aren't the oceans boiling from all this global warming? How is it possible that tropical cyclone activity is at HISTORIC lows when China and India have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere like crazy?
(a previous Huff. Post stated that Exxon spent $100,000 on PR while Albert Gore's group is spending $100,000,000 on a world-wide campaign. Another report has the US government spending $32 BILLION on climate change and Exxon spending $23 million on climate research)
Einstein stated: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Kevin's blog shows why he is not convincing: he avoids focusing on the geologists and climatologists with opposing views in peer-reviewed journals. He lingers on the non-scientists on the list of 30,000. Ian Plimer's book has more than 2000 references of peer-reviewed articles contesting co2 based CACA.
CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration).
Exchange between 2 climatologists: "How's that CACA study going?"
"Please wait until I get out of the latrine."
The CACA-ites fell into the scientific elite trap. In the same speech where he warned about the
Military-Industrial complex, President Eisenhower also warned about the scientific-technological elite.
Said elite is either on the Government payroll or suckling at Government's teats
excerpt:
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should,
we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself
become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
THEN DO THE EXPERIMENT!
I'll ask you what I ask all believers: If I grant you that GW exists, tell me specifically what's going to happen? Give me one consensus view of the outcome. You can't do it, because the projections are all over the place, and GW enthusiasts just cherry pick the craziest ones. If this is science, there should be certainty. There is none.
http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/
This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”
Can you verify this?
Can you please provide a link to the IPCC site which outlines the background of it's scientists?
How many of them are climate scientists?
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table_by_clim.html
Note their publications and PhD status as well.
The people who believe that Exxon/Mobil is behind all the climate skeptics are the same people who think the former Minister of Government Resources in Uraguay really has $50,000 he'll send you if you send him $500 first.
Isn't global warming effect all aspects of life on this planet?
Aren't we told global warming is causing species migration, oceanic changes, smaller fish, smaller sheep, toxic crops, declining reindeer, etc.?
When we see reports that fish are getting smaller because of "global warming" and scientists in that field of research contradict those claims, why shouldn't their voices be heard?
Findings in other sciences is often touted as "proof" that global warming is happening.
When their "proof" is found to be wrong, it's by scientists in those particular areas of research, not climate scientists.
Climate scientists didn't publish these studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16328547?dopt=Abstract
Shifts in caterpillar biomass phenology due to climate change and its impact on the breeding biology of an insectivorous bird.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23621210-1702,00.html?from=public_rss
Global warming set to fan HIV
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45110/story.htm
Monkey Sighting Stirs Climate Fears in Kenya
Since none of these people are "climate scientists" shouldn't we discount their opinions as well?
A couple simple questions. How many PhD climatologist are there in the world and what % is this of the total?
Why did you not spell out more specifics on those signing?
Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists
Physical scientists - 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS
5,810 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.
Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
What about the notes on those who publish in atmospheric science?
maybe this will help you: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/pdf/lettertoharper2.pdf
It shouldn't be hard for you to verify each and every name on it.
What makes me wonder, though, is, why they are writing a one page open letter, which is generally considered the equivalent of newspaper advertising, and not a complete technical report? They certainly claim to have the expertise and if they are really that concerned, shouldn't they be putting their technical effort where their mouth is?
:-)
http://www.nipccreport.org/
Most, if not all, of the people who signed that letter have publications. Find them. I can. What's wrong with you? I'll give you a head start. Here are links to some publications of the first three:
http://www.earth.uottawa.ca/details.php?lang=eng&id=55
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g480842x3277j408/
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/publications/publications.html
As for "climate expertise" here's some intel on some the "climate experts" on the list:
Benny Peiser - not published research in climate change - but he is published in a Sports Medicine journal: http://www.desmogblog.com/benny_peiser
Jack Barrett - a single co-authored paper on clouds 15 years ago: http://www.desmogblog.com/jack-barrett
Fred Singer - well, you just have to read that one to believe it: http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer
Same for Pat Michaels: http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels
Stop sending silly petitions and open letters and try posting actual science that refutes the realities of human-induced climate change. That's convincing and that's how science works.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
J. D. McLean
Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia
C. R. de Freitas
School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
R. M. Carter
Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
Fred Singer has a Phd in physics and has been a well repsected scientist his entire career. Desmogblog is a leftwing propaganda website with zero scientific credentials.
Jack Barrett has a Phd in Physical Chemistry.
Pat Michaels has a Phd in Ecological Climatology.
What are your scientific credentials?
If you are so concerned about petitions and letters instead of science, who do you not condemn the open letter Dr James E. Hansen sent to Barack Obama explaining to the President what a wonderful opportunity alarm about Global Warming is to engage in redistribution of wealth??
There is plenty of science published that refutes the climate change alarmists. Their own data do not even support the range of their predictions. The actual climate data collected over the last 20 years shoes that warming has not exceeded the minimum warming scenario projected by the IPCC in 1991 and again in 1997. In fact, warming has now fallen below those minimum predictions.
Since the government is by far the largest source of funds for scientific research and they seem to want a climate crisis, then by god that's what we'll get - despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
Ever hear how many lives will be saved by a slightly warmer planet? How much better plants (food) will grow? How much less fossil fuels will be burned to stay warm? Nope.
Quotes from Scientists in the field:
"Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period." - Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
Google them Kev.
The way I see it is that in many cases one can not even verify who these people are. So how can anyone claim that all of them are educated and intelligent?
:-)
http://www.nipccreport.org/