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.
So Hans, why haven’t you given up all things manufactured and gone back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle? It’s the only way to get rid of human industrial CO2, period. The fact that you use at least one computer tells me you don’t really believe there’s a catastrophe going on, but rather prefer to act superior to others and call people names.
Have fun as the sky falls on your head, we’ll be laughing.
Hans, your post shows you to be both mentally unbalanced as well as totally misinformed. Get help. Seriously.
i did not claim there was 40% increase in CO2 in atmosphere, I claimed that 40% or roughly that amount of carbon locked in fossil fuels, that which came from organic matter, which is where carbon is locked anyways, but is released though either consumption or decay, the excessive carbon taken out of the system and was locked into fossil fuels over millions of years is not being released at a rapid rate and will & does have an effect.
you claim 3 different numbers on how much carbon is absorbed by the oceans in one post.
whatever, this is a waste of time. I’m the only one reading your post, so whatever continue on with whatever you gain out of this.
nothing but the slow churn of mechanized republican dogma in here. do not back down, do not give in a small amount, don’t cede anything. all your way, your beliefs, only you are right. time is on your side, delay the acceptance of reality as long as possible, until reality is no longer what it was and can no longer be returned to what it was.
and this sums up the lunacy of this position:
why will China & India;
1) need to clean up their acts if there is “no problem”?
2) feel obligated to do anything if the US refuses to do anything b/c there are people like you that are doing everything in their power to disprove it?
3) what is this “CO2 issue” that will be solved “directly or indirectly”?
I thought there were no problems? You all just spent page after page telling me there was not a problem, i was living a lie, i was buying into a “religion”.
and to answer your question about me being hypocritical, you are in essence correct. I do have 2 computers, i have a plasma TV I did not want, that my wife gave to me as a present b/c i have done a lot for her and her family that is very poor and lives in Argentina. I paid to finish their house that was in squalid conditions when I first saw it, to give them a better life, with slightly less “needs.” I worked hard to start a business to make a lot of money quickly through hard physical work.
And I am miserable because of living in this capitalist society, where religious zealots drive the politics & hence the country. I am miserable b/c there are people like you out there hell bent on distorting reality, instead of acknowledging there is a problem that we need to work to change now, not 30 years from now when it is too late.
I am locked into this capitalism, bombarded by religious dogma eating into my rights, which are the same rights everyone else should have to be used in a responsible way, not “an Eff the rest of the world, I am here now, screw those that come after me.”
I am locked in a country driven to fight wars because there are “enemies” who we are not allowed to talk to, but we can sure as hell drop bombs on them.
Why am I angry at you, for the same reason I am angry at the right. They (you) propagate a distortion of the truth for their own selfish reasons, because denial is “better” b/c it won’t matter after “we” are dead, etc. Deny there are problems, let those after us worry about it.
Am I unbalanced, that goes without saying. I have not worked for over a year, by choice and by being continually overwhelmed on all sides by lies and distortions, and this is but one more of those distortions chewing away at me. An economy that is going to collapse is an inevitable end result of 8 years of religious dogma driving this country, years of living off credit to be paid by future generations (if they will ever be able to) of living off cheap gas that is subsidized by a bloated military that is financed by increasing debt. So yes continue on your mission of denial and maintaining the status quo where it only bends to the right, slowly ever so slowly but constantly to the right.
Now let’s see what your coming clean will reveal? what is your motivations of “disproving” and denial & discrediting everything that is happening? Please do tell, I’m waiting with baited breath. I already know the answer, but will not receive it. I have already stated your motivations, but you will not be frank and honest to reveal them, or your collective plan will fail. This is not conspiracy talk, this is reality. Continue on, Eff the rest, is what your collective message and motivation is.
BC: I would not presume to comment on Hans’ state of mind. I am more than content to address his arguments in the hopes that either or both of us will profit.
Besides, he cannot reasonably be expected not to strike out if pins are stuck in him.
i did not claim there was 40% increase in CO2 in atmosphere, I claimed that 40% or roughly that amount of carbon locked in fossil fuels, that which came from organic matter, which is where carbon is locked anyways,
Well, then you are accepting the “peak oil” argument, which is risible, prima facie. We had 3.4 tbbs potential reserve (all sources, shale, tars, bitumens, etc.) in 1975. That number is now 6.5 tbbls using the pessimistic wiki sources.
You will know when we are actually running short when the government lifts the current crippling bans on exploration. (And when they did that, we wouldn’t be running short anymore.)
Long before we run out of oil we will have run away from it.
Over half of all carbon we release is reabsorbed annually. The remainder persists, but evenetually falls out. But the total of emitted carbon is only c. 6.5 BMTC/yr. which really isn’t a heck of a lot in the overall scheme of things. When India/China do their cleanup act (in c. 20-30 years), that number will go down.
1) need to clean up their acts if there is “no problem”?
There is a considerable problem from aerosol pollution (soot). That affects their health and does indeed degrade Arctic Ice. When they become affluent to the point where pollution is killing more of their people than poverty, they will clean up exactly as the west did and for the sme reasons.
But cleaning up particulates is NOT the same as reducing CO2 emissions. Particulates are much cheaper to reduce than CO2 emissions.
There ARE problems with particulate emissions. There is very probably NOT any real problems with CO2 emissions (more research pending).
One must be very careful not to confuse smoke with CO2.
2) feel obligated to do anything if the US refuses to do anything b/c there are people like you that are doing everything in their power to disprove it?
The US has cleaned up its particulate act. In direct self interest. But only when we became affluent did we cease being effluent.
The US refused to do much about CO2, but then I don’t think that will be a problem. Particulates are the problem, and the US has done very well in reduction thereof.
3) what is this “CO2 issue” that will be solved “directly or indirectly”?
CO2 (considering the latest satellite data) is very probably not a real problem. It may, however be proven to be one. By “direct” solution I mean something akin to a good replacement for fossil fuels. We don’t have that now. We almost certainly will eventually, but one cannot know when until it happens. Progress pending.
By “indirectly” I mean that IF CO2 warming becomes a real problem we can work out a technological fix. Such as (to pick one possible example), scrolling out a few square miles of mylar in sloarsynchronous orbit to deflect solar energy. If done correctly, this could be adjusted up or down according to requirements. (It might even be usable as an energy source.) And unlike farfetched schemes to impregnate the atmosphere with crud or blast nukes, or whatever, it can be “undone” if it didn’t work without risking permanent damage.
But that is hypothetical. I expect CO2, if doubled, would have a small but not significant warming effect because the IPCC positive feedback mechanisms do not seem to “work”. In that case we would not need to do anything other than clean up the aerial particulates. (The particulates in the snow are moot–once covered up with a nice clean layer, albedo is restored.)
I agree that we must be poised for action if CO2 (against all odds) turns out to be a severe problem. But I am not willing to see many, many millions die prematurely of poverty as a result of carbon reduction unless it is really, really necessary.
I aver that the wealthier we are and the more wealth-driven tech we have on hand at any given point will better enable us to deal with AGW (if necessary) or any other environmental problems down the pike. And even the IPCC admits the effects of Kyoto would be very, very small.
Therefore we must not sacrifice vast amounts of wealth in a manner that will cause very much hardship with the poorest of the world bearing the brunt (as always), all to very little effect except to reduce out overall ability to cope.
To do so would merely amount to self flagellation and human sacrifice, once the bottom line is totted up.
I consider this to be both a sober and liberal view.
Hans, how about a reading comprehension course…
You’re still a hypocrite. A plasma TV you didn’t want, but you kept it, eh? You’re part of your own problem, yet manage to rail against us, assuming we’re all religious and republican (I’m an atheist, and do not subscribe to any specific political alignment). You apparently are willing to blindly believe some people (thus faith) but not others who simply ask questions which require answers.
You’re not locked into anything. Move to China, they’d be glad to have you. Now give up your carbon spewing live and go live in the forest with no modern conveniences. I dare you to practice what you preach.
what questions are you searching for answers to, the ones you hypothesize are legitimate? making up “science” to hide your denial? cherry picking information to legitimize your beliefs?
i worked in an industry were it was economically prudent to cut down all the trees in the area under the power lines, but started into the industry with an ideology all trees should not be cut, and quickly was able to legitimize what I was doing as “it is better this way to prevent forest fires, not bother people constantly coming onto their properties as the trees continued to grow, reduced cost of maintanence and hence consumer’s cost, etc., etc. Man has the capacity to legitimize something whether it is good or bad.
What is it you are legitimizing by preaching and discrediting a consensus of peer-reviewed science? It appears to me, you are legitimizing the status quo, through cherry picked information.
it is nearly impossible for a “renter” to afford to install solar panels on their rentals so that they can reduce their carbon footprint, while at the same time there are those in your camp that attempt to discredit reality. go discredit string theory if you want to discredit something that has little to no impact on any of our lives if you want to engage in some debunking of science.
there are too many inconsistencies within the “proofs” here. just above, EJ posted as fact fluctuations within the earth’s temperature and CO2 levels over millions of years yet claims almost in the same breath, we cannot trust ice core CO2 levels over the past 100,000 years. Excuse me, he can cherry pick them for the information he wants, then 10 seconds later discredit them at the same time.
at least I can admit I am hypocritical in my lifestyle, but I am one person who cannot make the changes needed to go about it on any level that would matter. whereas your camp is cherry picking a few scientific reports to discredit everything so that public/governmental policy does not change to reflect the reality of what is coming down the pike. my keeping the TV has nothing to do with government policy that you are trying to influence. I having the tv will last only as long as the market will allow it, the higher the electric goes, just like gas prices, the less they will be used on a market, consumer level.
however your camp’s decision to affect government and global policies to ignore the issues is absurd. you push a “flat earth” science that has nothing bur negative impacts on global policy to mitigate the impacts of the human experience on the planet. you want to maintain status quo, pollute as usual, it will have no “adverse” impacts, on let me remind you, the only planet we can live on.
it is equivalent of the religious right pushing “Creationism” on schools and children to maintain a low level of regulated “intelligence” so that they may, for whatever reason, control those under them.
don’t sit here and tell me your “science” is credible when it is taken out of context of all other factors that are affecting the global-stasis at the same time. it is garbage and disingenious to do, and to do it only shows you have ulterior motivates which I know you will not admit to. I can only surmise what they are, either Big Oil, Economic New World Order, etc.
You are attempting to tell me the sky is red and that it is only red at all times, even though we both know that at times is can be red under certain conditions, but it requires those conditions to be red, but at other times it is not when different conditions are at work. So yeah, continue on in this crackpot attempt do disprove all to maintain status quo, through debunking a small aspect of it.
to say I have bought into a religion, without even turning the microscope back on yourself it see you are a cult within that so called religion again is quite hypocritical, yet you will again not admit to it.
grand plan, whatever, it is nothing more than wanton ignorance.
i noticed you came out and called me hypocritical after I admitted it myself, yet you don’t acknowledge your own position or circumstances because you are in the same boat, yet you will deny it and attempt make others believe you are “righteous” in disproving what apparently in your eyes is being preached as religion. you are preaching both to a god and a false god at the same time.
Then why should any of us do so? After all, we’re all just one person each. I’m not a hypocrite because I don’t believe there is a catastrophe going on and am not preaching to the world that everyone but me needs to pay the price.
You honestly think anyone here is getting paid to “deny” anything? You’re really paranoid, aren’t you. Don’t bother answering, it’s already obvious. We can just see BS for what it is. Go ahead and buy your carbon credits, then you can explain to me how that will alter the global temperature one bit.
Hans, I’m not cherrypicking. I’m attacking the cornerstone of the AGW premise. I.e., Positive reinforcement theory. If there is no positive reiforcement there is no real problem. And the AquaSat has shown that there is negative, not positive reinforcement.
The Surface station issue is not cherrypicking either. almost half have been observed and six out of seven have site violations of one degree Celsius or more. McKitrick and Michaels (2007) independently confirm that site violations have caused world temperature increase from 1980 to 2002 to be exaggerated by a factor of TWO.
I agree than paleoclimate proxies should be taken with a grain of salt. But it does seem there was a great deal more ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere for most of the distant past. Regardless, I’m not using that for proof, just for circumstantial evidence.
i noticed you came out and called me hypocritical after I admitted it myself
That wasn’t me; that was some other kid. I consider all that to be quite beside the point. It’s true I have hardly any carbon footprint. I do NOT consider that to be a virtue. (I consider it to be poverty.) I intend to increase my footprint at the earliest opportunity. Meanwhile, you can have my credits. #B^1
this is a roundabout discussion I need to cut myself off of. the truth of the matter is there is no need to actively disprove these theories unless its supporters are in the pocket of big oil, etc. I see the newest post is “ice breaker caught in arctic ocean ice,” whatever, that’s like trying to prove someone is not fat because they have tiny ankles.
cheers, believe what you want. you should be able to use all those numbers you put out to get yourself out of poverty real quick just by going over to the teet of Big Oil, as they would be happy to throw lots of bones your way.
then again there will soon be a lot of money in solar electrics & geo-electric technologies for intelligent people, but to each his own.
REPLY: Well you’ve insulted, denounced, and cussed. Now comes the “we may be in the employ of big oil” standard line. With apparently only those simplistic debating tools at your disposal it certainly stands to reason that you’d want to run away from debate.
Poor Hans. Good luck with your AGW religion, and your obvious hatred and contempt for anyone who doesn’t buy into it. We here prefer science. Sorry about that.
Actually Anthony he’s said that in every one of his posts, I believe. If only it were true, lol. I’d gladly take money for saying something I already espouse. But it would take a LOT of money to buy my opinion. Let’s say, oh, 750k from George Soros…
the truth of the matter is there is no need to actively disprove these theories unless its supporters are in the pocket of big oil, etc.
It’s “for the children”. No, I mean REALLY for the children!
I am simply not in favor of throwing the world’s poor off the lifeboat unless and until the contrary evidence is refuted, which is the effect of the so-called “solutions” thus far proposed.
No, I’m not in the pocket of Big Oil. (But I’d LIKE to be!)
then again there will soon be a lot of money in solar electrics & geo-electric technologies for intelligent people, but to each his own.
Fine by me. Groovy. I am all in favor of “a lot of money”! (But not in favor of wealth destruction.)