Petition Project (Sorry Al, over 17,000 scientists declare global warming a lie)

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ^ | January 1998 | Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

[cdbull23]

Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

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

[cdbull23]

I believe this is an old study, but it's pretty interesting considering the latest article posted by the AP concerning Gore's movie and how, according to scientists, it's quite "accurate." At the website, there's a scientific study at the bottom of the page -- real interesting.

What about these 17,000 scientists?

[Froufrou]

I just have to smirk about this. Only a moron would believe Al Gore in the first place...and in the second place...oh, never mind...

[cdbull23]

Link to the actual study here:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[yobid]

But but but..... Al Gore invented the internet. He must be right.

[theDentist]

Only a moron would believe Al Gore in the first place...and in the second place...oh, never mind...

... they'd vote for him?

[Semper Vigilantis]

And I bet he's regretted it every day since! LMAO

[Froufrou]

~SNORRFLE!~ You have such a way with words...and thots! ;o)

[freedumb2003]

B & B!!!

[trooprally]

TRY THIS LINK to http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[Froufrou]

He DID?! Why, garsh, I'd plum forgot about that there piece of info...

If you took out his brain and placed it on the edge of a razor blade, it'd look like a beebee going down an 8-lane highway...

[kromike]

Please, Al, please run in '08! We NEED your...ahem..."wisdom" to save us unwashed masses from ourselves...

bwahahahahahahahahaha...quick poll, everybody: who's the biggest tool on the planet? Kerry or Gore?

[freedumb2003]

Of course we need to beware of the smug. It is much more dangerous than global warming.

[Froufrou]

Wait, did you mean 'smug' or 'smog?' That global warming thing has me confused. The air is thin up there, eh Al?

[freedumb2003]

I meant "smug."

Its a South Park thing...

[Paloma_55]

Global Warming??? Sure.

HUMAN CAUSED Global Warming??? Bull Pucky!

Humanity has existed for ~5000 years in any numbers and only in the last century developed the ability to produce any reasonable (but microscopic in global terms) levels of greenhouse gasses.

There was an ice age, now there isn't. Did humanity cause that?

There is a periodic warming/cooling of the atmosphere that has been recorded and well documented that has cycled for eons of measured time. (via core samples)



This chart was produced from data provide by N.O.A.A. evaluating Antarctic ice core samples.

[Froufrou]

Kenny=Algore

[cdbull23]

You're right, that was my mistake. The title should read "human caused global warming."

Maybe we can get the mod to fix it?

[piytar]

AP coverage of this very important story in 5, 4, 102, 37, 256, oh nevermind...

[Minnesoootan]

They are a tool set.

[Publius6961]

Perpetuated Junk Science BUMP!

[Screamname]

Hey how do you like this Rolling Stone article? They actually declare him on top as the winner of the 2000 election........

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10688399/al_gore_30

[ancient_geezer]

You're right, that was my mistake. The title should read "human caused global warming."

Only problem there is that very little global warming, in the sense of climate change, that can be attributed to anything humans do where CO2 is concerned.

 

CO2-Temperature Correlations

• "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
  
  ***
  
  Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years.  Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2.  In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm.  Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

• "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]

• "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature.  Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be.

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

•  "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."

---

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."

***

"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."

[syriacus]

Al's got a problem. Which fossil-fuel-burning humans can he blame for turning Wisconsin into America's Dariryland, because their fires caused the Ice Sheet to retreat?

[NavierStokes]

I would love to see a good survey of climatologists. The Global Warming Alarmists are always crowing about how they are the overwhelming consensus. I'm don't believe that's the case. The recent survey in 2004 suggests that their consensus is not all that strong.

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Bray.htm

also here:

(http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm)

The question asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates strongly agree and a value of 7 indicates strongly disagree."

There were 530 valid responses. The results were:

Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84
Frequencies:
1...... strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2...... 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3...... 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4...... 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5...... 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6...... 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7...... strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses

This is a slight rise in consensus compared to the same survey conducted in 1996 that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511). So I guess the consensus is growing slowly - from 4.168 to 3.62 - or 13% in 8 years

I wonder how the result would have changed if the question specified "result of CO2 emissions" instead of "result of anthropogenic causes"
There are lots of other anthropogenic causes besides CO2 emissions (Land use, aerosols, methane, black carbon, dissipated heat from industrialization).

The result you get depends on how the question is worded.