Home » Culture, Education, Global Warming, Philosophy » Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists

Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists

Scientific Consensus? – That Global Warming is Natural – and BENEFICIAL?!
Dr. Arthur Robinson will be announcing Monday that over 31,000 scientists reject’s IPCC’s contention of anthropogenic global warming. They further hold that the natural global warming is beneficial. The site gives an excellent summary of supporting research. This cite and its history are instructive on the methods to overturn the ruling paradigm and media mentality. ——————–

ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis


Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)
Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM
What: release of names in OISM “Petition Project”
When: 10 AM, Monday May 19
Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC
Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
—————————————
Global Warming 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.

————————–
Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.
——–

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon,
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

300 dpi pdf
————
32,000 deniers Lawrence Solomon, May 17, 2008 Financial Post
“That’s the number of scientists who are outraged by the Kyoto Protocol’s corruption of science”

———————

PS May 19, 2008. The Global Warming Petition Project; now has a new web site.
Letter from Frederick Seitz
Purpose of the Petition
Qualifications of Signatories
Instructions for signing the petition

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

28 Responses to Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists

  1. But it’s getting colder?

  2. hmm….i am as strong a skeptic as there is, but i thought that CO2 was causing acidification of the oceans leading to some fairly bad stuff (unrelated to global warming). is that not true?

  3. Nice ppt here http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/c.....dBoyle.ppt
    Shows that levels were much higher in the past and the oceans and all life did just fine.

  4. I feel compelled to point out a few things about the infamous Oregon Petition:
    1.The vast majority of those who have signed the Oregon Petition have no background in climate science. Suppose I have a PhD in Geography. Should I be considered an authority on string theory?
    2. An even smaller proportion are actually practicing climate scientists.
    3. Anyone with a Bsc can sign. Imagine the hundreds of thousands that graduate with these every year. Consider the millions who already have them. This petition has been open for any one of these to sign. All they have to do is read the petition online and mail in their signature. It’s no secret. In fact, it’s been repeatedly widely publicised.
    Also, think about the many who have had their qualifications for years, some long preceding current research on global warming by decades.
    4. Consider that this petition is being circulated in America, the home of climate denial. Take into account the huge commercial interests behind the denial industry. And know that since 1998 (the year when the petition was drafted) the George C. Marshall Institute (Former Chairman Frederick Seitz), with whom the ‘review’ was co-published, has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil (who, let’s face it, have been behind pretty much every denial group out there.)
    5. Dr. Arthur Robinson has never worked as a climate scientist. He publicly admits to not having done any direct research into global warming.
    6. The ‘review’ was published in a practically identical font and format to those of the Scientific articles in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the institute which Frederick Seitz reminded the review’s readers he was once President of (back in the 60′s, before he became a stooge for the ‘smoking isn’t bad for you’ guys). The likness was such that the NAS felt compelled to release a statement asserting that they were not affiliated with it. Consider how many were persuaded to sign without this knowledge (that the paper was not officially endorsed by any scientific body, and was not peer-reviewed.)

    If, after taking all this into acount, Dr. Robinson’s petition still impresses you, then he has surely done his work well, and is to be congratulated.
    Meanwhile, for everyone else, consensus will continue to mean a general agreement, not an absolute one. You will never get an absolute agreement on anything.

  5. freemind said,

    “Suppose I have a PhD in Geography. Should I be considered an authority on string theory?”

    The answer is “sure”. The reason is that most so called climatologists just toe the party or popular line That is they just go with what they are reading in the New York Times and all the biased scientific journals. The reason why global warming got so much steam is because it creates careers. Politicians love it because it’s a campaign issue. Teachers, researchers, engineers, environmentalists, anti-capitalists, — etc love it because it is profitable.

    So it matters not whether you are talking climatologists or geologists. To think that one has to be in the field that most pertains to the issue in question is to commit “the fallacy by authority.” That is in logic/philosophy the name for when people claim that something is true or best supported because someone in the “field” or expertise most closely related to the subject in question makes a claim and it is believed “only” because those so called “experts” say so.

    Look at politics. You have very many view points and yet they are all political scientists. Issues like global warming come down to two things and two things only.

    1. The climate data records- which ANYONE can access.

    and

    2. The physics/math that go into the formulation of the computer simulations of then pedicted climate futures.

    On the second point there are only a very few select people who have a good enough understanding of the computer simulations and the physics that go into them to make the proper assessment. Therefore, 99% of the opinions out there are not relevant.

    CO2 cause global warming is a just for profit business. It’s an absurd theory. It is getting colder now – and the best simulations project 15 years or so of a warming trend. That will eliminate all of the global warming that was supposedly caused in the 20th century. The current simulations don’t even take into account the effect of water vapor which “blocks” sun rays and is dramatically increased when CO2 goes on the rise (not to mention that the seek to demonstrate linearly something that is as far from linear as possible). That is, water vapor marginalizes the effects of what ever little man made CO2 is even effecting the climate to begin with.

    Do yourself a favor and stop watching “The News” because it’s nothing but “The Propaganda.”

    Global warming is just a tool used to manipulate people to increase the power of those in business that look to benefit fro it, redistribute wealth, and balance geo- political power. All at the price of truth. We should all be disgusted.

  6. Freemind
    You appear to master in ad hominem, inuendo and yellow journalism. e.g.,
    “infamous Oregon Petition”

    “3. Anyone with a Bsc can sign.”

    False. Your powers of observation are appear exceeded only by the lowly mainstream media journalist. Only those with science, engineering or related degrees. I.e., those who have been trained in physical and mathematical skills sufficient to evaluate technical graphs, papers and reports. (In contrast to the average media journalist.)

    “think about the many who have had their qualifications for years”

    You denigrate those with greater skill and expertise.

    4. “America, the home of climate denial.”

    You denigrate those who survived the holocaust. The issue is not if anthropogenic climate impact exists. The question is how much – and whether it can be distinguished from natural heating or cooling.

    You denigrate Prof. Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, insinuating that industrial funding biases his science. With his expertise, I would accept 99% of his statements on issues before your diatribe with no qualifications.
    Since some $50 billion has been spent trying to quantify “global warming” you perceive that as having no bias? You have apparently not read the real life confession: I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train 5/28/2007 by David Evans

    5. “…not done any direct research into global warming.”

    His preparation of his review Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide appears to be a good review of much of the scientific information ignored by the global warming bandwagon. What have you done that can possibly compare?

    6 . . he was once President of (back in the 60’s, before he became a stooge for the ’smoking isn’t bad for you’ guys).

    Again an ad hominem accusation.

    and was not peer-reviewed.)

    False accusation without evidence. The web site explicitly states it was peer reviewed.
    You might possibly demonstrate a modicum of scientific expertise by taking any one of Robinson’s 27 slides and provide a thorough even handed objective review of his cited evidence and any further evidence you can find. However, leave off all your ad hominem and yellow journalism. As a scientist and engineer, I would be happy to take Prof. Robinson’s well written and documented review any day over anything you can say based on your demonstrated lack of scientific skill.

  7. Mostly off topic: Look who Al Gore beat out for the Nobel Prize because of his GW activism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler

  8. Here’s a recent article analyzing the political aspects of GW science: http://www.americanthinker.com.....ience.html

  9. Frost:
    My point was simply that it would be absolutely possible for me to obtain a PhD in Geography without gaining any knowledge that would make me any more qualified to talk about Quantum or string theory than the average man in the street. In essence, my qualification is worthless in such a context. So the headline might as well be 31,000 random members of the public don’t believe climate change will be harmful. A Bsc in an unrelated field is irrelevant.
    When the claim that is being made is that it is somehow automatically significant that these people have Bsc’s, which is what this petition is based on, then is that not also the ‘Fallacy by Authority’?
    If you’re going to disregard the research the scientists do, the research they have been privy to, and the training that they’ve had, then how is it in any way relevant that they’re scientists?
    I agree that only 1% (or less) have the understanding necessary to formulate the inputs on the climatic models. We call them climate scientists. It’s their job.
    I’m not saying they’re infallible. I’m saying their our best shot. Or you can disregard what they say because you don’t like the consequences, appeal to absurd conspiracy theories, and decide that ignorance is the best way towards true knowledge. It’s pure and free from economic interests after all. No one would ever pretend that they didn’t know about something because acknowledging it would hit them in the pocket, right?

    DLH:
    In regards to BScs, I apologise. Where I come from, they’re not given for journalism, advertising, etc, but only for things of the nature you mentioned. While I suppose this was technically lapse of me to miss this cultural distinction, it wasn’t from lack of research into the actual petition itself.

    ”You denigrate those with greater skill and experience”

    No, I denigrate those who no longer practice, & have little or no conception of up-to-date research. I’d try to avoid selectively quoting people, in order to misrepresent their points, if I were you. It might make people think you’re a bit of a hack.

    ”You denigrate those who survived the holocaust.”

    No, I don’t. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, argument, or purpose, and you know it. That’s really, truly pathetic. The word ‘denial’ didn’t begin with the holocaust, and it didn’t end with it either. I made no comparison between those who deny the holocaust and those who deny AGW. They’re both denying something that seems bleedingly obvious to those without an agenda, but I made no link between the two, and would never compare the agendas of the two. One is based on racial ideology and historical iconalism, and the other is simply short-term self-interest. There is no comparison to be had there, and no-one would make the link except to avoid the issue. Either you’re highly paranoid, or just looking for ways to avoid my main points.

    I denigrate Prof. Frederick Seitz on the basis that he clearly fudged his research while working for RJ Reynolds, distorting public knowledge about the dangers of smoking on the basis of personal profit. It’s pretty obvious that industrial interests biased his research. The guy had clearly sold out.
    Believe who you want. All I can do is put the information out there. I have sources for everything I have written. Just say the word.
    As to scientists not on the Exxon pay roll being biased by wanting to secure research grants, that’s interesting….except, surely then it would be more in their interests to perpetuate a greater degree of uncertainity? To make sure the maximum goes on further research. As it is, with the increasingly resolute declaration that 1. AGW is taking place and 2. It’s probably going to have pretty serious effects; a much larger proportion of the potential funding is being spent on technology to combat the problem, and on a whole host of economic and social programmes rather than just on pure research. How is this in their interests?

    ”What have you done that can possibly compare?”

    Nothing. But then I have no interest in denying the evidence in order to perpetuate my own economic and ideological interests. What’s your point?

    ”Again an ad hominem accusation”

    If you think it’s in no way relevant that the man who endorsed the petition you’re championing has a history of supporting research proved untennable by modern science, for economic reasons, then fine. But I’m afraid to be blunt, that makes you, in my opinion, an idiot. Which would make this whole exchange rather pointless for you. Oh well.

    ”false accusation without evidence”

    Do your research. The paper was not peer reviewed until 2007 (9 years after the petition began), after the majority had already signed. And even then, it was only in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (the same fine journal that published an article claiming that HIV didn’t cause AIDS), Institute Director Jane Orient, professor of clinical medicine at ….what a suprise! The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine! Interesting that they chose not to put any of that on the website.

    I may well get round to taking apart Robinson’s slide show if I feel in the mood. But since the header of this article was a claim to challenge the scientific consensus by force of numbers (rather than scientific argument), I thought I’d just put it in some context.
    As a scientist and engineer, I sincerely hope you’re not in charge of anything important.

    I sincerely hope you have somewhere else to comment because you’re no longer welcome here. -ds

  10. 11

    Freemind said,

    “My point was simply that it would be absolutely possible for me to obtain a PhD in Geography without gaining any knowledge that would make me any more qualified to talk about Quantum or string theory than the average man in the street. In essence, my qualification is worthless in such a context.”

    You act as if I didn’t understand your point but I spoke directly to it. Of course I did- and I agreed at length that qualification of expertise is not a deciding factor. My point was more pertinent then yours though. I said that even the climatologists will not be privy to the physics and math that is needed to discern at what rate global warming might be happening due to CO2. You want to discount the geologists even though they quite often are well studied in historical climate trends- but count the climatologists that have been indoctrinated by years of education riddled with pro global warming theory literature. My point is that only about 1% or less of the climatologists are even trained well enough to understand and critique the computer models. Of course as I also pointed out- the linear modeling of a non-linear phenomena like global warming is already a flawed approach. This is not to say that such modeling isn’t important or valuable but the current models used by the ICC which is considered the prime source for global warming data and predictions- uses 3 times as much CO2 than is actually being released because they are looking at “a worse case scenario.” GO to Kato institute and read Patrick J. Michael’s articles on global warming. He SITS ON THE IPCC so is privy to the actual data and projections. He thinks it is all hype and I agree with him.

    The media will hype anything. Global warming is just the thing that took off because of it’s monetary and political usefulness.

  11. 12

    I also don’t have time to respond to all of your nonsensical statements above. I find your views completely redundant of the stupefying mainstream media and public at large. I wish we didn’t have your “balance” here at this site UD. I prefer 100% clear thinking to a perceived fair and balanced 50% clear thinking 50% liberal propaganda. I don’t care what you think of call that closed minded non democratic etc.- Man made global warming is not happening- it never has and it never will no matter how much you and you kind want to believe in it. The docs here in Baltimore city haven’t raised an inch in 100 years of CO2 emissions. Nor have they in New York or anywhere else. No will ever raise because of man. Global wamring is just a left wing idological political tool.- anyone non biased or with a an IQ over 115 can see this.

  12. 13

    Also there is no consensus on global warming because it isn’t happening! It got colder last year (though the pro global warmign crowed tried to deny it) and it is projected to trend significantly colder for the next 10 to 15 years. The computer models on the IPCC do not take into account the balacing effect of water vapor (because it drawfs the theory) and they dont even predict that much more global warming in the next 400 years! It is being blown way out of porportion because thse people in power know that they cann attach everything and anyhting to global wamring. Polar bears, owels, insects, trees, and water levels that raise or drop naturally anywhere can all be attributed to connected to global warming which will no doubt create a moral reason to raise taxes, redistribute more wealth and all of that left wing garbage — all based on weak and faulty computer models that didn’t predict last years COOLING.

  13. Burt but obesity as a cause of global warming!
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....-we-b.html

  14. Frost, On what basis do you claim the following:
    “…1% or less of the climatologists are even trained well enough to understand and critique the computer models.”

    “Of course as I also pointed out- the linear modeling of a non-linear phenomena like global warming is already a flawed approach.”

    “Man made global warming is not happening- it never has and it never will no matter how much you and you kind want to believe in it.”
    That’s quite a strong claim.

    Please cite.

    Also, for future reference, global warming is a long term phenomenon. While individual years may fluctuate between warmer and cooler, global warming proponents claim there is a long term trend towards warmer. This trend is expected to be on the scale of 10s, if not 100s, of years.
    Reprimanding global warming proponents because it got colder one year is the same as reprimanding a statistician because he couldn’t predict one coin flip. However, the climatologist will tell you it’s getting warmer over a period of many years in the same way a statistician will tell you that after enough coin flips you’ll get a trend of 50:50 heads:tails.

  15. The docs here in Baltimore city haven’t raised an inch in 100 years of CO2 emissions.

    No, apparently it’s been rather more than an inch:

    As particular examples of the effect of PGR, consider Baltimore, Maryland, and Stockholm, Sweden. The long-term (order 100 years) sea level rise of approximately 3.5 mm per year at Baltimore (and everywhere else in the Chesapeake region) is about twice the global rate because of subsidence due to the peripheral bulge collapse from the last deglaciation [ Tushingham and Peltier, 1991].

    Whilst the change described isn’t due to climate change, it is still a rise in sea level that you claim isn’t happening.

  16. For a really good critique of global warming alarmism, see this link:

    http://www.skeptic.com/the_mag.....elief.html
    “A Climate of Belief” by Patrick Frank. In “The Skeptic,” vol. 14, no. 1. (Patrick Frank is a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.)

    On the other hand, I’d be just a little wary of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine. Click here to see why:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....d_Medicine

    I might add that Dr. Frederick Seitz died two months ago, according to this brief bio in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz

    Finally, here’s a very good Website for keeping track of global warming news and views, pro and con: http://www.climatedebatedaily.com

    Hope this helps.

  17. Bob

    Frost probably meant exactly what he said: the docks have not been raised in 100 years. Sea level might have changed during that time but not enough to require that the docks need to be adjusted for it.

  18. freemind

    I realize you’re banned but thought I’d use your own logic against you.

    According to your logic only a PhD botanist should be considered an expert on whether the effects of higher CO2 concentrations are good or bad for agriculture. Obviously you and I are incapable of reading about the relationship between CO2 and plant growth. Well, obviously YOU are incapable, in any case.

  19. Wesley

    Funny you should mention coin flips in the same breath as computer climate models.

    The computer climate models might as well be based on coin flips given the accuracy of their “predictions”. In fact flipping a coin would probably give better predictions.

    CO2 induced warming should be greater the higher in the troposphere you go but the increases are greatest at the surface. It should be a global phenomenon but in fact is almost entirely limited to the northern hemisphere. Oceans should be getting warmer but recent measurements by thousands of robotic diving thermometers show a slight cooling instead up to the depth limit of the instruments (300 meters).

    Here’s the scoop on all this. When a computer simulation of reality doesn’t match up with reality we (speaking as a computer scientist) usually consider the model to be the source of the error instead of reality.

  20. When a computer simulation of reality doesn’t match up with reality we (speaking as a computer scientist) usually consider the model to be the source of the error instead of reality.

    If they really wanted to model climate, they really should be subjecting the computers to swings in temperature and humidity. But, I am willing to bet that they aren’t.

  21. wesley,

    the point is that it HAS been 10 years with another 10-20 predicted before it warms. this isnt’ just 1 year, it has been a DECADE. ironically, it is this same decade that we have all heard a sickening amount of rubbish about the link between CO2 and warming, yet with 5% more CO2 hanging out in the atmosphere, the temperature has at LEAST leveled off if not slightly cooled with more to come……..the models just are flat out failing.

  22. 23

    Here is a copy of an email that I sent to promenent global warming skeptic Timothy Ball (Ball’s responces are in the grey)

    Dear Dr. Ball,

    I am a college student of 22 years of age and have committed myself to the study of political science at Towson University, MD. I have always had an interest in the politically hot issues, as many people do, and one of them is Global Warming. I am currently busy studying Intelligent Design but in the process of learning more mathematics and logic a question came to my mind. It makes me quite sick that Global Warming is being taught in the public schools especially as the elementary and middle school levels.

    “Worse, it is usually taught in the social studies adn political curricula when it should be doneinthe science curriculum first then you can have discussions based on logic and facts. As it is it must devolve to politics and emotionalism by default.”

    It has been said that “the song a sparrow learns in its youth is the song it sings for life.”

    “Yes, and Ignatius Loyola founder of the Jesuits said give me the child and I will give you the adult. Societies have always seen the advantages of indoctrinating rather than educating and extreme examples include the HItler Youth and education in the Soviet Union.”

    The influence of education on the young mind easily adds up to something more like indoctrination or brainwashing when the facts are pushed aside to make way for a political ideology. It doesn’t help that the same ideology that is being forwarded by the radical environmentalists is currently allied with the agenda of the teacher’s unions. This makes the motivations for teaching about Global Warming in the schools ever so much more desirable. The entire charlatan act is at its heart nothing but about people’s immediate self interests. This tells you something about the idea that governments can transcend capitalism with something less “selfish.”

    “This reflects the wider problem in society created by making global warming and climate change a political issue. Now if you reject the idea that humans are causing change you are automatically branded as conservative and right wing. I know many scientists who reject the theory that humans are causing climate change but are not politically of the right.”

    Given the aforementioned situation of which I think you will agree with the terms of, “Why hasn’t anyone critiqued the computer programs that simulate the “inevitable Global Warming” of the future with “real mathematics, data and logic?” It seems that once the flaws are pointed out then you can begin to take legal action and put this nonsense away. Something that I might say would be never more timely.

    “I watched as computer modelers took over climate science and control it as they do today. As you clearly understand the models don’t work because at the very least they are trying to replicate a non-linear system linearly. Until recently the entire process of climate models was controlled by people who could afford or had access to the large and expensive machines necessary. Now people who use and understand computer models are beginning to take apart the complete inadequacy of climate models. We saw the same thing with the statisticians moving in on tree ring studies (dendroclimatology) and identifying the misuse and abuse. You can look at the “hockey stick” debacle which claimed there ws no warming for 1000 years then a sudden upswing in the 20th century.

    A couple of interesting quotes;

    If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.
    –Pierre Gallois

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

    Good luck with your studies and career.
    Tim Ball

  23. 24

    Also here is an article by Ball comparing global warming to Darwinism

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1272

    I thought it was good article considering this site’s focuses

  24. I remember years ago when global warming was first gaining attention, a TV show tried to give a unbiased view by interviewing the scientists in favor of global warming and those against it.

    The one thing I noticed was the difference between the offices of those for and those against.

    Those who were for it, they were fairly new in the field, their offices were large and nicely decorated. You could see they had a LOT of funding.

    For the scientists against it, most had been studying climate for a long time. Their offices were small, cramped, their desks cluttered with studies they had been performing over the years.

    That’s been at least 10 years ago. I still believe the guys in the cramped offices.

  25. 31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda. ‘Mr. Gore’s movie has claims no informed expert endorses’ Bob Unruh (c) 2008 World Net Daily Exclusive.
    Some extracts:

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

    In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.’s campaign to “vilify hydrocarbons,” officials told WND. . . .
    The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

    See full article 31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

    The Global Warming Petition Project now has a new web site.

    Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research
    Letter from Frederick Seitz
    Purpose of the Petition
    Qualifications of Signatories

    1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

    2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

    3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

    4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

    5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

    6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

    7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

    Instructions for signing the petition

  26. interested at 2

    hmm….i am as strong a skeptic as there is, but i thought that CO2 was causing acidification of the oceans leading to some fairly bad stuff (unrelated to global warming). is that not true?

    That is the popular view with increasing acidity causing carbonates to dissolve etc.

    However, some recent studied find that some oceanic biotic systems actually increase formation of organic calcium structures with increasing CO2 acidity. See:

    Buitenhuis, E.T.; de Baar, H. J. W. and Veldhuis, M. J. W. (1999). “Photosynthesis and calcification by Emiliania huxleyi (Prymnesiophyceae) as a function of inorganic carbon species”. J. Phycology 35: 949-959. doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.1999.3550949.x.

    Nimer, N.A.; Merrett, M.J. (1993). “Calcification rate in Emiliania huxleyi Lohmann in response to light, nitrate and availability of inorganic carbon”. New Phytologist 123: 673-677. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1993.tb03776.x.

    Iglesias-Rodriguez, M.D.; Halloran, P.R., Rickaby, R.E.M., Hall, I.R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J.R., Green, D.R.H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S.J., von Dassow, P., Rehm, E., Armbrust, E.V. and Boessenkool, K.P. (2008). “Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World”. Science 320: 336-340. doi:10.1126/science.1154122.

    Extracted from: Ocean Acidification Wikipedia.org

    Terrestrial biotic systems appear to thrive on higher CO2.
    Could the oceanic biotic systems have been designed to also increase under the higher CO2 conditions that occurred before most fossil fuels were formed?

  27. A study of ocean cores for the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55 million years ago found an increase in carbon dioxide equivalent to at least about 4,000 billion tons carbon. Combustion of all known fossil fuels would generate about 4,500 billion tons. See:
    New findings show a slow recovery from extreme global warming episode 55 million years ago. Tim Stephens
    UC Santa Cruz Currents online, June 13, 2005.

    It is curious that the biosphere appears to have survived that massive increase in CO2! Or did the temperature increase cause the CO2 increase?

Leave a Reply