Of course the alarmists folks will denounce this as they did the last one, and there are bound to be a few unscrupulous types, such M.J. Murphy of Toronto who blogs as Big City Lib, who by his own admission, made false statements to get “weaseled onto the list” (his words). There are others who will do their best to crash the list so they can claim it is a sham, but there is one name on this list worth noting:
Freeman Dyson is one of the world’s most eminent physicists. You can read an essay about his views on climate change, posted here on WUWT a on 11/05/2007.
You can read all about the Oregon Petition Project here at the Financial Post.
I did not sign on to the Oregon list, but rather chose to add my name to the Manhattan Declaration this spring. I also signed the very first petition of this type, back in 1997 called the Leipzig Declaration.
If you want to add your name to the either the Manhattan Declaration or the OISM petition, you can still do so. Here are the links:
Manhattan Declaration via an an interactive PDF of the declaration, which includes a form ready for completing and submitting.
Oregon Petition Project via a mail in PDF form.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM and alarmist bloggers spin this one. I’m sure they’ll do their best to minimize it as being “irrelevant”. I believe at some point though, there will be recognition.
Nature of course will be the final arbiter of truth, such as what we see here in global temperatures from satellite and surface since 2002.
Graph from Joe D’Aleo at ICECAP – click for larger image
UPDATE: 5/21/08
Honor system abuser, BigCityLib, aka Michael J. Murphy of Toronto reports that he in fact did NOT make the list. By his own admission he lied about his background and falsified documents to try to have his name added, but apparently the petition screening process found his deception and denied his application. But he says he’ll keep trying and encourages others to lie and falsify documents such as he has.
On an unrelated note, I orginally had 32,000 in the title because that is how the original email sent to me (third party, not OISM) had it. Upon further inspection I note the number is closer to 31,000 so I’ve edited the title to reflect that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My dad can soooooo beat up your dad!
ATTN: Kum
Forget biofuels. Methanex (Vancouver, BC) sells methanol for $1.50/Us gal, and it can be used instead of just gasoline. See the racing cars run on TV? They fuel up on wood alcohol and run like stink! .
Must share this with y’all; shamed as I am that we Australians have come of age; but not yet reached the age of reason:
AUSTRALIA’S emissions trading market has been unofficially born – and the all-important carbon price has started at $19 a tonne.
Energy giant AGL has sold banking giant Westpac 10,000 tonnes of “permits to pollute”.
The Australian, Cathy Alexander, May 20, 2008.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23730759-12377,00.html
If the number of scientists doesn’t indicate credibility, then that argument works both ways. It indicates that they AGW ‘consensus’ has no more credibility than the opposing view.
Science is about falsification. The current AGW debate seems to be about special pleading to protect the hypothesis from falsification.
Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave.
We are approaching an interregnum period in the Enviros attempt to convince Americans that they are guilty -at least guilty of something. The AGW offensive hit its peak a few years ago. Since Nature hasn’t quite cooperated recently the noise level has decreased, but that doesn’t mean the Enviros have been idle. They scored a big victory last week with the polar bears, and all 3 presidential candidates vow to “do something” about global warming (it would be nice if a reporter asked any of the 3 candidates how they are going to mitigate something that hasn’t occured for a decade?).
The problem is that the Enviros constantly move the goal posts. It doesn’t matter if 3 million scientists say that AGW theory is wrong if the Enviros change thier sides from Global Warming to Global Cooling or Global Drought or Global Earthquakes, or Global Floods. My bet is they will stay with Climate Change because it is so loosely defined and can be used to meet any short term change in weather patterns or events. In the mean time, they are re-calibrating thier message. Even Real Climate has backed off thier postings -they use to post a new study or topic once a day. Now it’s once every few weeks.
Interesting abstract that surfaced recently, which is actually quite old.
“CO2 in Natural Ice
By Stauffer, B & Berner, W
Natural ice contains approximately 100 ppm (by weight) of enclosed air. This air is mainly located in bubbles. Carbon dioxide is an exception. The fraction of CO2 present in bubbles was estimated to be only about 20%. The remaining part is dissolved in the ice. Measurements of the CO2 content of ice samples from temperate and cold glacier ice as well as of freshly fallen snow and of a laboratory-grown single crystal were presented. It is probable that a local equilibrium is reached between the CO2 dissolved in the ice and the CO2 of the surroundings and of the air bubbles. The CO2 content of ancient air is directly preserved neither in the total CO2 concentration nor in the CO2 concentration in the bubbles. Possibly the CO2 content of ancient air may at least be estimated if the solubility and the diffusion constant of CO2 in ice are known as a function of temperature. (See also W79-09342) (Humphreys-ISWS)
(From: Symposium on the Physics and Chemistry of Ice; Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Cambridge (England) September 12-16, 1977. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 21, No. 85, p 291-300, 1978. 3 fig, 5 tab, 18 ref.)”
This was picked up from Greenie Watch, but look at when it was first published. I wonder if the ice core people are aware of this report and whether it has been subsequently verified. Anyone who is in the business should be able to repeat this experiment. If it proves to be accurate, then all bets are off, insofar as paleo CO2 levels go.
I am sure no warmer will take this list seriously, Earlier when it was at 19,000 and 90% verified they bragged about sneaking a false name onto the list. If your willing to lie about other things why not put fake names on your opponenets petition and then use the fake to bludgeon him. Perfectly reasonable to a dishonest person with a political agenda.
The 90+% legitimate ones can than be pointedly ignored in their way of thinking.
While lists like this don’t prove anything, this list has one advantage over the supposed list of 2500 “scientists” claimed by the IPCC. The signers of the petition actually agreed with what it said. This is not the case with the IPCC report, even if your contribution or comment was to tell them they were wrong you still count on their list of supporting experts.
And here I thought science wasn’t by popular vote.
Anthony,
Thanks for the info on Freeman Dyson. He was quite a self made man. It seems that his accomplishments fly in the face of some of the contentions that you have to be an expert in the field to be considered as having a viable opinion. I believe that he would have been one of the people I would prefer to listen to. Looks to me like he is a thinker. We need more of them.
Bill Derryberry
Actually, the lists and arguments pale in comparison to Mother Nature shaking her finger at our impudent beliefs that she is powerless compared to humans. The weather here in Wallowa County (snow in the mountains, just above freezing on the valley floor) reminds me of my grandmother giving me a righteous whipping with a willow branch cause I talked back. Gawd-a’mighty, is it gonna snow all summer???????
BCL criticizes the argument to authority, poor thing. The point is that the high tide of CO2 foolishness is now ebbing and great numbers of all sorts of people are changing their minds about global warming, now that the earth cools.
============================================
No One at 18:48 5/19, note he’d no PhD. Found no need, I guess.
===============================
Ric Werme says:
“A lot of scientists can be wrong – have been wrong. No matter how you set up the list, some of the scientists are likely to know less than many non-scientists running around.”
The trouble is the warmers have successfully created the illusion that the ‘science is settled’ and that only a ‘few cranks on the payroll of oil companies’ dispute their claims. This kind of list demonstrates that those arguments are bogus. In turn, this list will make it more difficult for alarmists to avoid dealing with the substance of the science (although I am sure they will come up with other excuses to avoid discussing the science).
Freeman Dyson is an excellent example of someone demonstrating the futility of credentialism as a guide to policy in our society.
Sure he didn’t have a major degree in science, but certainly his contributions to science, particularly the development of models of reality, are unquestioned. There were no degrees in many of the areas of his expertise because he invented those areas.
His analysis of the formulations of quantum mechanics demonstrates his authority on modeling. Essentially, these formulations are mathematical models of a part of the universe. Different from climate models in that these are based on experimental observations.
He picked up on the weaknesses of GCMs when he brought up the subject of fudge factors in the models, as well as the inability to accurately model cloud formation, dust, impact of biological systems, etc. These models are only as good as mankind’s understanding of the underlying processes of weather.
Quite frankly, Freeman Dyson’s opinions carry more weight than thousands of the signatories of any list; to say nothing of opinion polls of any other group. Why? Because he understands the limitations of the computer models and candidly points these out. No need to trot out a list of people disagreeing with him, just overcome his objections.
But the climate will do what it will do, no matter what we have to say about it. Right now, it looks like its cooling, which disproves the AGW hypothesis.
Eppure, si rinfresca
Jack Simmons
Yes, the lists are rather lame and childish, “but they started it” 😉
By throwing down the concensus gauntlet, and calling us “flat-earth, fringe, lunatics”, they force us to play that game. It won’t be long before the climate takes the edge off the AGW agenda. I haven’t heard the “tipping point” threat for at least a month now. As long as we keep getting good data from the satellites and oceans, the hot air keeping the AGW balloon afloat, is radiating quietly out into space.
People like bigcitylib who falsely put their names on this list, in order to then turn around and complain how worthless it is, reminds me of the parable of the person who murders their parents and then pleads for sympathy because they are an orphan
Ric, when it comes to politics, “my list is bigger than their list” always works. If nothing else, the lists are counter arguments to the 2500 “scientists” on the IPCC list.
Frankly, whether you believe in human influenced global warming or not, surely, unless you have no common sense and a willfull disregard for your own safety, you should be able to realise that using something again (so you don’t have to buy a new one) and not being entirely dependant on a substance coming from one of the most politically unstable regions in the world is probably a good idea? and even if we aren’t the cause, if the ice caps are melting, and thousands of species risk extinction, and megastorms are a-brewin’, then maybe we should try to do some damage limitation anyway? Whatever you believe the cause is, it’s getting hotter, and we are in big trouble.
REPLY: Please someone help this man, I’m out of lfe preservers at the moment.
My Governor can beat up your Governor – oh wait that doesn’t work because my governor has his head in the sand.
I posted the OISM list on the Bee website. 60 comments and growing.
Let the MSM boycott it if they dare.
BTW Lubos Motl has the alarmist counterpart to the OISM list posted on his blog.
You should compare the names before placing wagers on whose daddy can beat up whom.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientists-against-agw.html
Um, Malcolm, science is not “about falsification.” Science is a method of understanding the world through a method of investigation, cross-checking, and verification. The problems of consensus come about through things like this petition, where scientists, who are not knowledgeable about a particular field, nevertheless claim an opinion on the subject of that field. Sometimes, even within a particular field, a crop of scientists can be wrong. Eventually, the truth comes out, or a new idea is presented and accepted. It’s a continuous process. It is obvious that many people who weigh in on climate change are directly influenced by politics, not scientific inquiry. Among those who seriously research this subject, acquiring data, investigating it, comparing it, testing climate models, etc, there is a consensus that global warming is happening, and that human activity contributes to it, regardless of the overall effect. Some of that activity involves factories in China, an overpopulation of oil burning vehicles, and an unusual reliance on cows for protein. It is fashionable among those who benefit directly or indirectly from these activities to claim that 1.) there is no such thing as climate change; or 2.) human activity does not affect climate or environmental degradation. These are the same types of people who used to claim thalidomide and mercury are harmless, and all birth defects and nerve damage after such exposure are natural occurrences. These are the same type of people who claimed that Earth was the center of the universe about which the Sun and planets revolved, and that stars were placed in the “heavens” for our pleasure by an all-powerful being, not that the stars were also suns and planets and galaxies, and nebula, etc. Scientists often make mistakes, but eventually all such mistakes are recognized, and corrected, or the tools used to observe and analyze are replaced, updated, or newly invented. Climate change is occurring, so we need to prepare for some of the effects, instead of denying the very possibility.
Question: How large are the Cayman Island bank accounts of “organizations” like Icecap who have an open flow of money coming in from “Big Energy”? Record profits just don’t sit around doing nothing. If your profit could be decreased by X dollars because of some factor, wouldn’t you spend Y % of X to assure you don’t lose all of X? It’s just a matter of determining how much of X “Big Energy” is willing to spend.
If “CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS SPEND $912 MILLION THROUGH LATE NOVEMBER” in the 2006 elections and we know how much they saturated the media airwaves, we can compare that to the amount of “Big Energy” commercials we see on TV and then think of the quarterly profits we hear about for Big Oil, $11.7 billion in quarterly profit for Exxon Mobil last quarter. Where is the rest of that money going as a mere 10% by one company alone could overspend the advertisement soaked 2006 airwaves?
Yes, the lists are rather lame and childish, “but they started it” 😉
By throwing down the concensus gauntlet, and calling us “flat-earth, fringe, lunatics”, they force us to play that game.
In fact, I agree. This is an issue of policy as well as science.
(While acknowledging , as always, that it can take only one scientist to turn a consensus on its head.)
JS
Funny, Barry Bruce-Briggs (one of the OLD Hudson Institute crew in its glory, when it was under Herman Kahn) had exactly the same criticism of the models. You may recall that the Old HI used to construct not a few demographic models of their own to predict the future (economics, poplation, demographics)–and that they nearly always were eerily accurate.
What would be sort of interesting would be to find out of Esther Dyson agrees or disagrees with her dad.
The high priest of global warming, Al Gore, has said many times that there are very few scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming. That’s a big part of his pitch to take action on warming now. Al says the debate is over.
This petition demonstrates that Al is flat out wrong. There are many scientists who dispute AGW, and the debate is far from over.
BTW I’m still waiting for the list of scientists who do support the AGW theory.