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.
borealdreams (14:06:15) :
“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”?”
From my sense of meeting Joe D’Aleo a few times, I suspect the Cayman bank accounts don’t exist and that the balance in the local bank accounts is not much. OTOH, I haven’t asked.
If anything, my impression is that the “skeptics” have a lot less money and income than the AGW folks with a steady stream of research money. Which isn’t enough for them to open a Cayman bank account. Except maybe for Al Gore, though apparently most of his recent income before his movie is from investing in Google.
A lot of pure science doesn’t pay all that well. Scientists tend to get distracted with learning how the world works. Without that reward, I suspect more scientists would join private industry.
BigCityLib,
How about posting your name so we can check the list and see if you really made it!! 8>)
Too much talk, and not enough action…
Of course, since you spent ZERO (0) time checking it out or actually trying to get on the list. You have not realised that they are actually making an enormous effort to AUDIT the signatures they receive!! Like their first list, there will be a low error rate.
Al Gore and the other people who claimed the science was settled and the consensus was behind the IPCC should get used to being called LIARS!!
Here is a link to the full list of names:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
They have Dr. Teller’s petition there!!
I hear they pay very, very well over at the “Creationist” Society! The “science” coming out of there is amazing. I hear they’e about a nanosecond away from the breakthrough on how Noah got 2 of every animal & plant specied on Earth into the Ark.
ps, scientists tend to get really distracted when their research findings are edited by 20 year old college Republicans with a degree in Theology too, but hey who’s keeping track.
John A,
Phillip K. Dick was the writer.
Ric Werme,
As has been mentioned by others, the idea of this list is to prevent the DIALOGUE from being CUT OFF!! The warmers keep telling us the consensus has spoken, “everyone agrees”, the science is settled…
Everyone most assuredly DOES NOT AGREE even within the 2 VERY LOOSELY ALIGNED camps. There are many people in between and outside…
We need more research and less censorship!!! We also need gubmint to do what it is best at. NOTHING!!!!!!
Evan,
Your comments certainly stirred some old memories.
I remember when the Club of Rome reports were all the rage. I had to get a copy and read it as soon as I could. It was quite terrifying to see what was going to happen, IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUED. At the time oil prices were going through the roof and it appeared there would be no stopping it.
Of course, current trends can change. In fact, you can count on it. Real talent lies in detecting the changes in the trends.
Barry Bruce-Briggs co-authored Things to come; thinking about the seventies and eighties with Kahn. I didn’t know about the book until a lot of what they projected had already occurred. It was very impressive, or as you put it, eerily accurate.
Do you know where I could obtain a copy of Bruce-Briggs review of these models?
Eppure, si rinfresca
borealdreams: ‘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 we are trading in conspiracy and contaminated motivations, then presumably you are quite comfortable (and perhaps enthusiatic, depending on your investment portfolio) about the role of Enron in lobbying for carbon trading – megabucks? ain’t seen nothing yet, see here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813229/posts. You must be one of those smartest guys in the room. Just google Enron Kyoto.. those profits aren’t sitting around.
O’Maolchathaigh:
“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.”
Like ‘Climate Scientists’ offering up rudimentary derivations involving physical phenomena cast interms of artithmetic and emotive prose.
Yours is the mere appearance of wisdom, dismissing crucial elements of a process with an obfuscational description of the process. Either give us rigor or get along to your next pint.
i think this is in order 😉 but too tired to read through it all.
Sulfur cap & trade to the best of my knowledge worked and allowed the market to meet the goals set out for reduction while doing it in the most cost effective manner possible. Had it not worked, the entire Northeast USA & large swaths of Europe would look like the areas around Sudbury, Ontario [looked for an image, but found some crap saying Hummers were more environmentally friendly than a prius?!] from the acid rain that was rampant some decades ago.
That is odd, if Kennyboy was involved in Koyto from the backside, why would GWB & Republicans have fought it so much? I have no problem with a cap & trade system, I wish it would come about, b/c even then there would need to be a adjusted scale price car owners would have to pay dependent upon average output for their model car & how many miles they drove. let the market drive it, there is so much money in “green” related industries, yet so many fight GW theory tooth and nail. It really makes zero sense to me other than a complete arrogance of their impact on the world and a complete disregard to how their actions will effect their children & grandchildren.
the market is gonna drive the SUVs out of existence here real soon with $4 and rising gas prices. I guess America’s Holiday of cheap gas is finally over.
It really makes zero sense to me other than a complete arrogance of their impact on the world and a complete disregard to how their actions will effect their children & grandchildren.
Then let me give you an explanation not involving complete arrogance and disregard.
A demographer would decry the ignored effect of economic impact on China and India, whose children and grandchildren would be denied the affluence that we in the west take for granted. This would result in a needless continuation many, many millions of deaths due to the greatest killer of all: poverty.
If carbon emissions have the effect the IPCC claims it will have, there might be cause for such a terrible sacrifice on the part of the developing nations. But the Aqua Satellite indicates that the CO2/water vapor positive feedback equation of the IPCC is completely in error, and that instead there is negative feedback and homeostasis.
This explains why temperatures have been declining over the past decade despite the fact that the NOA, AO, AMO, and PDO cycles have all been simultaneously in a warm phase. Now that PDO has flipped to a cooling phase (with the other cycles soon to follow), we can expect a worldwide cooling trend, possibly for the next three decades.
This gives us time for further study and vast economic expansion. If there does turn out to be a problem, after all, we will be far better equipped in terms of both wealth and technology to deal with it then.
Bear in mind that even if we in the west comply with cap/trade and the third and fourth world do not, the impact of the “wealth never created” will still be felt mainly in the poorer countries. (Call it “negative-economic positive feedback”.) Look, for example, at the humanitarian and environmental havoc brought about by the biofuels “experiment”.
Not to put too fine a point on it, for every $billion wasted (or not created), babies starve. It is therefore morally imperative to have a considerable degree of certainty before making such sacrifices. Not to do so would be an act of supreme arrogance and callous disregard.
“It is therefore morally imperative to have a considerable degree of certainty before making such sacrifices.”
Hear, hear!
RE: Ric Werme (20:26:43) :
Plus, the regions and demographics that feature the highest percentage of hard core environmentalists tend to align pretty well with ones, to use nomenclature from “The Clustering of America,” such as “Urban Gold Coast” and “Money, Brains and Power.” So, de facto, skeptics, who are somewhat more likely to hail from more “middle class” regions / demographics are also more likely to have a slightly lower mean income than AGW “true believers.”
To do a spot check, it would be interesting to compare the 10 most wealthy US zip codes with 10 randomly selected from the mid range of wealth, vis a vis AGW belief fervor.
@ur momisuglystevesadlov
Since when has it been considered bad to be college educated? That is exactly what you are implying, and that is exactly what the media is implying lately with the importance of “working/middle class” people who feel the pains of the current economic situation, in opposition, “they/you argue” to those “elite” [read:who have a college degree] who somehow have a golden ATM stuck up their butts that shoots out money and exempts them from the need to work. and thanks for stating as “factual” by example that ignorance is justified simply for being poor!
let me turn this around on you and state as “fact” by example as you do: If we were to take a map of religious density and overlaid it on the map of those that do not believe in GW, we would find a relationship showing the more religious an area is the higher the average of “GW skeptics” there are.
if we next set down another layer of mean incomes, the 10 poorest areas of the US, we would find the lower the mean income the greater the density of religious believers and higher density of GW skeptics.
If you believe your’s to be true and accurate, then my example is therefore true and accurate as well. would you like to “reformulate” theory?
@ur momisugly EV
now green technologies are responsible for people starving?! and we need “absolute certainty” before we do absolutely anything at all? By this logic [off topic but within the fundamental beliefs of those skeptical of GW] we need to have a Missle Defense System [star wars] to protect us from threats of the future, yet we don’t have “absolute certainty” in how to make it work and by relational “fact making” laid down by you developing Star Wars is starving people “so [to do it] would be an act of supreme arrogance and callous disregard” if I follow your reasoning.
why is this you guys? anything else you want your way and will spin in “intelligently articulated” arguments and therefore make it factual and indisputably correct because you “crafted it with fancy words.”
when will you propose that Nuclear Power plants need be build in the midwest US, to power the increasing energy demands of drawing water from deeper and deeper in the ground as water table [aquifers] drop? When will you propose a nuclear plant needs to be built for every 3 other nuclear plants built, to supply the energy needed to just draw up water for cooling the other 3 plants?
Also, so this latest “decade of highest recorded mean temperatures” is the high point of a sine wave and will now start on a downhill trend? Yep and northern polar ice sheets “grew at their fastest rates” this past year too, correct? And please dismiss in the weeks following September 11th, there was a slight recorded ambient air temperature average, that was later attributed to a moratorium on commercial flight, and no contrails in the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation back into towards the earth, aka Global Heating, aka CO2/Water vapor feedback loop.
do you guys understand the concept, and I know that you do as you are claiming it of those who studying GW and arrive at results verifying it, that garbage in equals garbage out? just post your “fact” inlaid “intelligently” crafted theories, and rest assured your “people of lower economic status” will believe what you say because you say it. Oddly, I just don’t understand how your “education derived” intelligence is of the common man, in stark contrast to the “elitism” of college education from “liberal” bastions of eastern “golden coasts” universities.
I love the degree to which you all spend justifying your beliefs as factual to 100% certainty, while categorically dismissing GW theory because it is on too great of a scale of inputing factors to nail down with anything short of a 100% agreement of all studied impacts.
The complexity of, and how elaborate th lie is, does not turn the lie into a truth, no matter how many times it is recited.
Yeah, I agree with a bit of what the poster above said. I don’t yet have an opinion on this subject but I see religious zeal on both ends. This issue attracts political fundamentalists.
In particular the lists smack of creationism. One of the list makers is of course James Inhofe who is a young earth creationist himself and likely familiar with the tactics of creationism. He has his own list of 400. Nutty lists filled with either quoted mined comments, “skeptics”, people with non-related degrees, etc. They use a variety of such lists. Even carefully worded declarations that might convince a supporter of evolution to sign. All sorts of tricks can and have been used with lists.
I think that global warming skepticism attracts creationists because they have common cause as conservatives to oppose what they see as liberal views. Which is not to say that all skeptics are creationists but I think there is probably a correlation on the other end. To the biblically minded any effort that they believe undermines science, supports the bible.
I hear they’e about a nanosecond away from the breakthrough on how Noah got 2 of every animal & plant specied on Earth into the Ark.
Well, maybe Dr. Noah was a classification “lumper”, not a “splitter”. (And he probably had an ark of holding. )
Besides, both factions have their distaff side. But even if one invests one’s beliefs in the Great Pumpkin doesn’t (necessarily) mean one is wrong on any other given subject.
And not a few liberal atheists are getting pretty skeptical about AGW, these frosty days! We look at the statistics and notice that it has been cooling for a decade, you see. Even with the PDO, AMO, NOA, and AO simultaneously blasting away in their warm phases and a 4% increase in CO2.
On top of that, the AquaSat has shot down the CO2 positive feedback theory and the ArgoBots show ocean cooling.
Given all that, a continuing belief in AGW would seem to require something of a leap of faith. (But far be it from me to question a man’s religion. Believe what you will, my dear fellow! )
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? — Keynes
Since when has it been considered bad to be college educated?
It has its ups and downs. It encourages an abandonment of a certain degree of common sense. Both the elite and the sloggers have their positive aspects and their shortcomings. Some of us grads attempt to combine the knowledge of the former and some of the wisdom of the latter.
I would say that perhaps the greatest strength and weakness of higher education (and higher IQs) is a strong, almost erotic tendency to the counterintuitive. I never met a grad student who didn’t in his heart of hearts want to believe up is down and 2+2=5. One the one hand, it does get a man out of the box. On the other hand, once out of the box, one can go a little, well, funny in the head . . .
(As for me I took my MA in Ashamed of American History from Columbia, so, yes, I got an earful. I jumped ship after that and joined the proles.)
Also, so this latest “decade of highest recorded mean temperatures” is the high point of a sine wave and will now start on a downhill trend?
Well 1998 was a big El Niño year. but was followed by a honking big La Niña, which balances out the trendline. If you skip ahead to 2001, you get the same negative trend. In fact, after 2001, we have had three El Niño events ( 5/02-3/03, 7/04-2/05, 8/06-1/07 ) and only one La Niña (starting last year).
Given all that plus a PDO flip, it is reasonable to predict a continued cooling for quite some time. (Not to mention Solar Cycle 24 having gone AWOL.)
I love the degree to which you all spend justifying your beliefs as factual to 100% certainty, while categorically dismissing GW theory because it is on too great of a scale of inputing factors to nail down with anything short of a 100% agreement of all studied impacts.
I don’t consider the skeptical view to be 100% certain or even 100% true. But I seriously doubt AGW theory for a number of reasons both theoretical and observational.
Let us say that our degree of doubt is roughly equal to the degree of certainty entertained by the other side . . .
now green technologies are responsible for people starving?!
Yes. Rather directly, in the case of biofuels. There is also the indirect effect of loss of wealth and lower economic growth.
and we need “absolute certainty” before we do absolutely anything at all?
No, a “considerable” degree of certainty would be quite sufficient. I am not against anything that does not harm the economy. And I don’t think that “anything at all” harms the economy. And yes, I’m pro-nuke. I’m pro anything THAT WORKS. And yes, I’m willing to “have one in my back yard”.
But consider that if we “do nothing”, both wealth and wealth-driven technology will advance very quickly. This will leave us in a far more able position to deal with AGW if it actually does turn out to be a problem.
I don’t think there is enough evidence for drastic action, and furthermore, I seriously doubt the efficacy of the drastic action thus far proposed. And I–greatly–fear the unintended consequences thereof (the poor, as usual, will bear the brunt of the suffering).
Kyoto, for example, will hardly affect world climate one whit and would be very costly, not only in terms of expenditure, but (mostly) in terms of growth. The latter of which never seems to wind up on the red ink side of the ledger (but should).
In short, stipulating that AGW is indeed the serious problem the IPCC et al say it is, we cannot “dodge” it. But we can “outrun” it.
Of course, current trends can change. In fact, you can count on it. Real talent lies in detecting the changes in the trends.
Herman Kahn found an S-curve to be quite efficacious. (He got a lot of good mileage out of S-curves.)
Barry Bruce-Briggs co-authored Things to come; thinking about the seventies and eighties with Kahn. I didn’t know about the book until a lot of what they projected had already occurred. It was very impressive, or as you put it, eerily accurate.
Indeed he did. He’s quite a character, and still hanging in there. It’s great to encounter a body who remembers that great old crew. (I recently had the privilege of writing the intro to the new edition of Kahn’s On Thermonuclear War. )
Do you know where I could obtain a copy of Bruce-Briggs review of these models?
Har-har, I’m it! Sorry, ’bout that.
I quizzed him about it last Thanksgiving as we sat on my cousin’s porch in New Jersey, swilling seriously spiked Fish-House Punch and talking about God and the world. (With a heavy dose of economics, statistics, and military history.)
FWIW, he was considerably down on the models and said they couldn’t possibly predict anything as complex as climate and were taking far too few things into consideration in any event.
I’m afraid you’ll just have to take my word for it . . .
Eppure, si rinfresca
“Cool is the rule.”
Hans
“yet so many fight GW theory tooth and nail. It really makes zero sense to me other than a complete arrogance of their impact on the world and a complete disregard to how their actions will effect their children & grandchildren.”
“yet so many fight GW theory tooth and nail. ” Because the theory that CO2 drives the climate is wrong and I will figth against any type of CO2 cap and trade or CO2 tax. And I am thinking of my children and grandchildren.
If you are going to line your pockets through CO2 cap and trade, then you are selfish and a hypocrite.
NCPA study about the IPCC
“The Data Are Unreliable. Temperature data is highly variable over time and space. Local proxy data of uncertain accuracy (such as ice cores and tree rings) must be used to infer past global temperatures. Even over the period during which thermometer data have been available, readings are not evenly spread across the globe and are often subject to local warming from increasing urbanization. As a consequence, the trend over time can be rising, falling or stable depending on the data sample chosen.
The Forecasting Models Are Unreliable.Complex forecasting methods are only accurate when there is little uncertainty about the data and the situation (in this case: how the climate system works), and causal variables can be forecast accurately. These conditions do not apply to climate forecasting. For example, a simple model that projected the effects of Pacific Ocean currents (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) by extrapolating past data into the future made more accurate three-month forecasts than 11 complex models. Every model performed poorly when forecasting further ahead.
The Forecasters Themselves Are Unreliable. Political considerations influence all stages of the IPCC process. For example, chapter by chapter drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report “Summary for Policymakers” were released months in advance of the full report, and the final version of the report was expressly written to reflect the language negotiated by political appointees to the IPCC. The conclusion of the audit is that there is no scientific forecast supporting the widespread belief in dangerous human-caused “global warming.” In fact, it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible.”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308
Informs study about the polar bear
“The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include “Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century” by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions” by Christine M. Hunter et al.
Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.
Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.
Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.
The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.”
http://www.informs.org/article.php?id=1383
I agree with the ones who say that voting has no place in science.
Nevertheless, all us scientists have accepted the peer review method as the least painful one of separating wheat from chaff. In publications there are usually several where a given paper could be submitted, so if rejected by one it could appear in another one.
The AGW crowd is making a lot of fuss about “peer review” shutting their eyes to articles and links if they are not “peer reviewed”. A mantra.
This petition is accompanied by a lucid review of why CO2 is not the culprit of the observed warming. The 9000 phds who have signed the petition are peers and also referees of this review in all senses of the word: they would not have signed it if they thought the contents unsound/unproven rigorously.
The report is peer reviewed par excellence.
Thus a good use of this petition for the scientific community is to display the folly of this “peer review” mantra taken up by the hoi polloi of AGW.
Anna, I am not a scientist, just a lousy Liberal Arts person, so I don’t qualify. But what about you? Have you signed on yet?
So the only “certainty” you would accept is the “certainty” that nothing needs to be done now?!
i have no interest in the cap & trade market, I also have no investments whatsoever, you the hypocracy charge is without merit 😉
so next tell me, that methane has no effect on global temperatures. that methane release from melting permafrost in the arctic areas will not cause problems and will not feed a positive feedback loop to release even more methane locked in the air. tell me that rising ocean temps, will not effect the methane hydrate locked deep in ocean, that is locked in place by a delicate balance of both pressure & temperature. tell me great swaths of forests are not dying because as the areas have milder winters and drier summers, cambium eating beetles face less and less defenses mounted from the the tree’s inability to produce sap is not occurring because of Global Warming or Global Climate change. Tell me there is not renewed excitement of the mythical NW Passage becoming open year round, decreasing trans-global shipping distances. Tell me, China’s 1 a week opening of a new coal fired power plant will do nothing to the Earth’s atmospheric balance. Tell me, increased CO2 in the air is not being absorbed by sea water in higher levels, resulting in higher levels of carbonic acid the result of CO2 merging with H2O, that is having a drastic impact on most “hard shelled” oceanic life’s ability to make its protective layer. Tell me, the increasing influx of more dense fresh water coming off the ice caps, ice sheets & ocean contacting glaciers will not have any impact on the global thermohaline currents. Tell me again, waste barrels of 100,000 year half-life radioactive waste dumped at sea decades ago is safe now b/c “dilution is the solution to the polution”. Tell me again, all the nuclear waste at locations like Hanford, that has already breached the underground containment tanks and has entered the groundwater and into the Columbia River is safe?
Yes please tell me you do not have enough “certainty,” oh I mean 100% certainty that these will not cause any effects whatsoever because no less than 1 trillion different scenarios have been played out to prove that there is any concern to be had.
Once you can answer that there is no concern for any of the above, let alone all of them in unison, then I will not consider you an arrogant man only concerned about yourself and your short remaining years on this planet and putting enough money into your pocket so you can do whatever you want with no concern whatsoever for you actions. You do not care about your children and you children’s children, you are self absorbed and arrogant. I don’t need your acronyms to prove some point you have yet to prove, to know you carry water for some ulterior motive and that motive usually if not always leads back to money, money in your pocket, screw the rest of the world and your children!
enjoy your life, f*** the rest right?!
[…] John Rath wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHans “yet so many fight GW theory tooth and nail. It really makes zero sense to me other than a complete arrogance of their impact on the world and a complete disregard to how their actions will effect their children & grandchildren.” … […]
Oy. This article brought out the agw hystericysts didn’t it?
They must be getting desperate to silence us.
evan Jones 23:03:22
I am not a US citizen and my phd is from europe. I have signed the Manhattan one, though.