31,000 Scientists Can't Be Wrong
 

Manbearpig on the run!

NOTE: BE SURE AND LOOK AT ALL THE REFERENCES AND LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
---------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2008, 8:51 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"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," the petition states. "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 Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Al Gore's office for comment, but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.'

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher."

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "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.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends 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."

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there actually are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of PhD scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations' campaign to vilify hydrocarbons, officials told WND.

"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," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"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," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 PhDs, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors, and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petition Project: http://www.petitionproject.org/

list of scientists by name: http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php

list of scientists by state: http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_BY_State.html

Also, see this link: http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

Also, read this article:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Bush hates manbearpig!

So I guess that just because this article said that there is no chance of global warming I should just believe it? If that is true, then what about me trading my 928 for a new Ford Excursion?

So what do you think? Should I trade the Porsche V8 for a 6.8 liter Ford V10? I'd certainly not go for the diesel- that uses 30% less fuel! We can't have that can we.....?

N!

-You know, you Rebuplicans are right in the end! We need MORE oil! Lets drill the crap out of the ANWAR. And who needs any of the other National wildlife refuges? Lets drill them too!

N~

Whats a manbearpig?

Actually, it is quite easy for 31,000 people to be wrong.

When you consider that about 50,000 doctorates are handed out in the US every year, not counting the "Master Degrees" or "Bachelor degrees" that got lumped into this count, my guess is 31,000 rapidly becomes a minority. And that is only in the US. Of course many more degrees are handed out globally. The total number of existing degree holders is large beyond guessing.

My point: While 31,000 may sound large, statistically it is probably just a small portion of the overall universe.

I also don't see how this project would "alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies". Market forces don't care what scientists say, nor do Chinese and Indian consumers.

They live in Anwar. I think that's what Alcore said.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfGmf8L3-z0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfGmf8L3-z0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig

31,000 scientists isn't good enough for you to at least seriously question Al's message eh?

When is the last time you were at a national wildlife refuge?

The article posted simply disputes "consensus" as claimed by some folks.

How many people here know anybody who has ever been to Anwar?

Would you give dissenters on the "consensus" premise who are past and present members of the actual UN IPCC more credence? There's a significant number of these folks too, FWIW.

Do you personally feel there is consensus, i.e. everyone agrees, that man is a significant contributor to "climate change"?

Algore makes it up, 31,000 scientists disagree & you guys want to give the benefit of the doubt to Algore? Just when you think you've seen it all!

Lease the refuges to Canada and let them go seal hunting.

Yes they can.

You wouldn't go- It's not a national refuge. It's boring and dreary, mosquito infested land set aside for oil exploration.

Please begin the drilling right now.

Of course they can. To prove my point, consider the following: According to your post, 31,000 scientists have gone on record as disputing the global warming theory as promulgated by A. Gore. At least that many have gone on record as supporting Manbearpig. To misquote Dire Straights, when two men say they Jesus, one of them must be wrong.

So the question is whether the 31,000 scientists you agree with are wrong, or the unknown number of thousands of scientists on the other side of the issue are wrong. As to that, I have no idea. I suggest asking another 31,000 scientists whether the two positions can be reconciled.

Facts:

1. The article comes from an evangelical Christian right-wing web site well known for it's badly researched polemic.

2. The originator of the petition is one Fred Seitz - a well known charlatan. Here's what the Times said about him in his obituary:

Quote

Seitz argued that predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, were wrong “and do not conform to current experimental knowledge”. He believed that increased carbon dioxide was beneficial, increasing plant growth rates. The US National Academy of Sciences, of which Seitz had been a former president, took the very rare step of rejecting his position on global warming.

Most climatologists disagreed with him at the time. Even more do so now.

Unquote

Seitz's main qualifications were that he was a long time consultant to R.J.Reynolds Tobacco and NATO. and a Board member of the American Society of Mining, Mettalurgy and Petroleum Engineers.

3. And the petition? It's taken 15 years to collect these signatures through massive direct mailing efforts targeted at small Christian colleges in the southern US. Only 9,000 of the respondents have PhD's - and most of these are in engineering (read petroleum engineering). Most of the respondents have a Bachelors of Science degree - nothing more, and again the single largest group of these are in engineering.

This is the kind of junk I've come to expect from this poster.

Yup, Al Gore is on the run.