More Than 31,000 Scientists Disagree With Al Gore
May 19, 2008
I have for quite some time now offered the argument that only idiots and those with personal agendas would claim that anthropogenic global warming was “settled science”. At no time in history has intelligent man stopped discussing or studying scientific information in order to better learn and advance the scientific community. Why should climate change be any different?
Along came a politician who couldn’t win his home state in an election and began a campaign to convince the world we were all going to die if we didn’t make people stop creating carbon dioxide. And they followed in masses, ready to lay down everything in their lives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
If you recall, Mr. Gore even said that anyone who is a holdout on man-made global warming was no different than members of the Flat Earth Society. He also said these are the same kind of people who think the lunar landing was staged.
Mr. Gore, you now have over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition basically calling you a phony. Of those 31,000, over 9,000 of them hold PhDs. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine sponsored the petition.
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses 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.
If you’re interested in what these “Flat Earth Society”-type scientists base their conclusions on, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a peer reviewed research paper.
I have been asking that at a minimum, we reopen the scientific discussion about global warming and end this jumping off a cliff foolishness based on theory. Not only does it look as though discussions will continue along with qualified research but existing research is presenting a completely different picture than the one Al Gore et. al. are presenting.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
Tom,
That petition would be from 1998 and was originally sent out under false pretenses: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
Also the driving force behind the petition, Frederick Seitz, is a man who, formerly, directed the spending of over 45,000,000 of R.J. Reynolds tobacco money to prove that smoking has no effects on health.
More info here
http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/ADVISORY:+Dr.+Arthur+Robinson+(OISM)+to+Release+Names+of+over+30,000+Scientists+Rejecting+Global+Warming+Hypothesis/3654512.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/19/31072-scientists-john-mccain-needs-to-talk-to/
Which I guess you are saying all 31,000 scientists are eccentric fools who should be ignored?
Not me. The sourcewatch article I referenced earlier said it well enough:
None of those names exist now and I find it humorous that environmentalists scoff at scientists as not being credible if their field of expertise isn’t climatology, yet they blindly will follow a politician and believe everything he says as the gospel.
Bizarre!
It seems parenthetical to note you excerpt is contradicting itself:
“This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM’s website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all
If they were so hard to look up, how would they discover only a few dozen…I guess they just quit looking!!!
Typical of these type of information sources….Basically almost all the research going on today is funded by govt..That puts a bias on it it begin with, and if it’s not politically in favor at the time, forget it, no funds…That’s what it is all about…not how to save the earth,(but that’s what they’re selling) but the Almighty dollar….and get on the wagon, Virginia….the snake oil is on the way!
[...] has a peer reviewed research paper. I have been asking that at a minimum, we reopen the … credit : [...]
[...] More Than 31000 Scientists Disagree With Al GoreIf you’re interested in what these “Flat Earth Societyâ€-type scientists base their conclusions on, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a peer reviewed research paper. I have been asking that at a minimum, we reopen the …Black Bear Blog - http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb [...]
[...] institute of science and medicine pay per click advertising More Than 31000 Scientists Disagree With Al GoreIf you’re interested in what these “Flat Earth Societyâ€-type scientists base their conclusions [...]
By reading above you will find that it’s very easy to make blanket statements that attempt to discredit this petition.
Unfortunately they are just that, feeble attempts to discredit the petition.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Frequently_Asked_Questions.html
When they lie, as the first post above DOES, you can then get a measure of what and who do believe. (And what is up with all that space in his post - is he trying to hide the replies he knows he will get?) Jon Clausen says Frederick Seitz spent $45 million was spent to prove smoking is not bad.
Anyone can read up on the now deceased at 96 Dr. Frederick Seitz to get the truth, according to the NY Times:
Dr. Seitz was president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962 to 1969 and president of Rockefeller University, one of the nation’s leading research institutions, from 1968 to 1978.
And here are his words on the $45 million also from the NY Times:
In an article for the technology journal TCSDaily, he wrote, “The money was all spent on basic science, medical science,†citing in particular research on mad cow disease and tuberculosis and for the work of the Nobel Prize winner Stanley B. Prusiner, the discoverer of prion, an agent that causes brain and neural infections.
How easily liars with agendas are caught.
TW
Having said my piece, I was going to leave it at that, but since I’m being called a liar… here’s one source:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?printable=true¤tPage=all
another here - an extract from Heat by George Monbiot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
It is expected that there will be conflicting arguments.
No one disputes that Dr. Seitz had an impressive curriculum vitae. It is arguable that his impressive CV is the very reason R.J. Reynolds paid such large sums to bolster the academic findings of their program.
My intention is not to slander Dr. Seitz. My assertion is that his connections to big tobacco, with it’s long history of manipulating science for their own profits, lends credence to questioning his absence of bias and, thus, the validity of his assertions.
Call a liar a liar, and he sends you to the source of his lies: another liar. That’s what I call real authentication! Jon here, sends us on a long winded Vanity Fair, global warming bulltripe, woooh! Maybe he better look under the skirts, cause he ain’t finding the truth in that article! Yeah Jon, water levels have been rising for a long time now, but they have been doing that long before we started to industrialize the planet. The point is, they are now trying to point to man as being responsible for it, and there is no REAL scientific connection, because we weren’t the cause of it in the first place…All the psudo scientists can draw up their own theorys, and that gives them no more validity than you or me.
I think it was 1969, no wait musta been 1972 I learned in science class how Jupitor due to its great size has pull upon the Sun, as well as those Sun spots affects on earths weather/climate changes. And Jupitor’s huge red spot is changing and scientists think it’s due to climate change. But wait! Theres no carbon credit scam on Jupitor…no cars spewing out greenhouse gasses, so what gives? Say, you don’t think we’re all being played for suckers by the PTB, do you? Naw…tell me it ain’t so. Would Al Gore Screw us with lies for his own personal gain, NAW, would the U.N. commies lie to us NAW, would paid to lie scientists for the U.N. governmental IPCC, NAW tell me it ain’t so. HA.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13963-third-red-spot-erupts-on-jupitor.html
http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-opinions.asp?id=BGMHH9IPD4Q
@jes - I certainly don’t expect to sway yourself, Tom, or Tom W. by my arguments or source links. Since the term “agenda” is being thrown about so casually, I would suggest that each of us brings our own to this conversation. I don’t make the assumption, though I may disagree with him, that Tom is “a liar” because he brings his own perspective and publishes about that perspective on his blogs.
If you wish to demonize me and call me names for my perspective, for citing sources with, certainly, as much validity as the ones previously referenced, that’s certainly one option… I will assure you there is nothing nefarious in my “agenda.”
Jon, you’re right on this count, good logic, there. Too bad you’re not using it in finding out the absurdities involved in the global warming hubbub. My apology.
Niether of us can prove these agendas. The arguments are inconclusive and open to conjecture. That’s the point. Greg did more on his newscientist reference to show the fallacy of thinking, than either you or I could do to show conclusive evidence or back up an argument. At least from a logical point of view, the analogy gives a better perspective than invalad and unsubstantiated conclusions. This is the basic reason why any scientist worth his salt would gladly sign a petition protesting the ubsurd use of logic and scientific procedure.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), sponsor of the petitiion, is headed by Arthur Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools” and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
This so called Oregon Petition, was circulated in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of persons. The only credentials necessary to sign it was that you must have an undergraduate degree in science. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Robinson’s paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. In reality, neither Robinson’s paper nor OISM’s petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences. Robinson was not even a climate scientist, nor had his paper ever been published.
None of the coauthors had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson’s 22-year-old son, along with two astrophysicists who worked at the George Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank funded by a number of right-wing foundations,
Do you really think the petition is valid? Do you really?
Yup!
And I think everything you read came from sources that gave a different spin on it. Have you read the references in the posts above?
Wow! So that was a peer reviewed journal? It was clearly filled with a slanted message throughout. Some points even took on a scoffing tone. I read peer revued journals every day and have never seen so much clear bias and lack of objective presentation of material. Where’s the methods? What is Table 1 talking about? I know of two-tailed tests, but where does probability fit in? What statistics generated those numbers? I am a biologist not a climatologist or physical scientist, but I am familiar enough with peer reviewed journals to know that this was a political piece constructed to look legitimate. Pick up Science, Nature, or Proceedings of the Royal Society and get a feel for the tone and presentation of real peer reviewed journals and then read this again. Even the non-scientist should see the difference.
To Cris: I’m not sure which of the articles you are refering to? Without going thru them all again…(that was two months ago)