Skip to comments.31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday
Posted on 05/19/2008 10:00:16 PM PDT by newbie2008
The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday.
Although this will occur at the National Press Club in Washington, DC., it seems a metaphysical certitude media will completely ignore the event.
Isn't it ironic, dontcha think?
As announced Thursday by PR Newswire via StreetInsider.com:
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."
Folks should recall that this petition was first circulated in 1999 garnering more than 19,000 signatures. The alarmists discounted its significance because there were some duplicate names, and some of the signatories apparently weren't scientists -- or so the story goes.
With over 31,000 now on the list, all with degrees in science -- including 9,000 PhDs! -- what might this do to the nonsensical premise of there being a consensus concerning this issue?
Probably not much, because apart from conservative websites, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, nobody is going to report it.
Yea, well 290,000,000 top scientists still worship Al Gore.
This needs to be sent to McCain.
I hope they’re not all Polisci majors.
As I recall? The Gore cronies only have about 400 scientists that drink the Global Warming cool aid. And many on that GW list may not be real scientists.
A million rational scientists would not be enough, as the environmental, global warming crowd of the left are quite EXCLUSIONARY in the same sense as the Black Liberation Theology of Obamas’ church. Similarly, here is an elegant piece on the heart of liberal thinking which explains why the unappointed, as yet’ ‘Hate Science Rights Commission’of the global warming crowd, would reject 32,000 rational scientists....this piece, by L. Auster discusses the Ontario Human Rights Commission vs comumnist Mark Steyns ‘islamophobia’, in my opinion, a necessary ‘phobia’ for Western Survival, and offers a direct, clear explanation of the lefts’ thinking process...”All people are good except YOU”..
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
All People Are Good, Except You
By The Brussels Journal
Created 2008-05-15 09:48
A quote from Lawrence Auster at his blog, 15 May 2008
The key to the [Ontario Human Rights] Commission’s thinking is in its labeling, as wrongful “Islamophobia,” the view that Islam is a threat to the West. The assumption underlying such a judgment, whether about Islamophobia or bigotry generally, is that all people are good (except for people who don’t believe that all people are good), and that no people can be a threat (except for those people who believe that some people can be a threat). Since all people (that is, all people who don’t hate nothing except hatred) are good, and since no people are enemies (except for the people who believe that there are enemies), any negative statement about a group (except for negative statements about the society’s own majority group) is by definition a false, vicious, dehumanizing attack on that group.
The core error of this liberal view is that it never considers the possibility that some people and groups (other than the majority peoples of the West) may indeed be enemies. Specifically, it never entertains the possibility that Islam is in fact a threat to the West. If Islam is a threat to the West, then saying that Islam is a threat to the West is not an act of bigotry but a statement of truth and part of a legitimate effort to protect the West from a real enemy. By condemning and punishing such defense as illegal bigotry, modern liberalism prohibits the West from defending itself.
In short, liberalism has taken group conflict, a normal feature of human history, and turned it into an immoral act, with the further twist that only the West is capable of exhibiting such immorality against other groups, while other groups are incapable of exhibiting the same immorality against the West.
How does liberalism get away with seeing only Westerners’ negative statements about Islam as wrongful, but not Muslims’ threatening statements about the West? Very simple. Under liberalism, there is no society “here” to be attacked. Under liberalism, Canada is not a substantive entity—not a nation, not a culture, not a people, not a “group.” Canada is, instead, a system for the promotion of human rights. Not being a concrete group or culture, Canada cannot be an object of bigotry. But Muslims and other immigrants, who are concrete entities, can be objects of bigotry. Muslims are a group and therefore deserve to be protected from discrimination. Canadians are not a group and therefore do not require protection from discrimination.
In short, Western peoples do not need protection under the modern liberal order because modern liberalism, in its very premises, has already defined the Western peoples out of existence. This is why it’s a waste of time looking for liberals and mainstream conservatives (who accept the premises of liberalism as much as the liberals do) to protect us. Under modern liberalism, the Western peoples have already in principle ceased to exist, and all that’s left is the mopping up operation.
The Commission, by the way, makes an interesting Freudian slip. After pointing out that Ontario’s anti-discrimination laws do not infringe on publications and books, it mentions the more sweeping anti-discrimination laws in other Canadian jurisdictions, with the obvious intent that Ontario emulate them:
Limits to freedom of expression under some other human rights legislation in Canada are broader, stating that no person shall publish, issue or display before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol or other representation.
Of course the Commission left out a phrase. It meant to say something along the lines that no person shall publish any statement, symbol, etc. “that discriminates against anyone.” By leaving out the words, “that discriminates against anyone,” the Commission makes it sound as though the law prohibits all statements, publications, and symbols, period. Meaning, the total cessation of public writing and speaking. I call this a Freudian slip because, as argued here, the prohibition of all discourse is the logical end toward which liberalism is really heading.
31,072 American scientists...
And every last one of them are in the pocket of BIG OIL!
The Gorebots will not be swayed- they will consider these 31,000 people to be either not “real” scientists or scientist who are being funded by evil commercial interests.
How many of the 31,000 will have their careers destroyed by Gorebots and Sierra club trustees?
Can anyone tell me how many of these are climatologists who are published in the peer review literature. Peer review literature means that other scientists can evaluate their arguments and provide counterarguments and/or data. I would be interested in more information as to whether these “scientists” are actually working in a scientific field, and if they are if it is even remotely related to this topic. I have a degree in “general science” with a minor in education, have worked in a scientific laboratory, but hardly consider myself a scientist.
Let’s hope the 31,000 are prepared to do more than sign a petition. A few commercials, group photo, etc. The number 31,000 will mean nothing more than a statistic to doomsdayers.
if anything it should dispel the consensus argument .
(should but won’t)
One can turn your argument around and ask much the same of the scientsist that Gore relies on. Of course, it is easier for some to be published than others, so that is not a totally reliable test. If there is a consensus, it is that the world’s climate changes over time. That is certain. The rest is speculation.
He wouldn't understand it.
And it's because he recently changed his mode of transportation in an effort to reduce his "carbon footprint"
sincere thanks to the creator of this image
In related news, 31,000 Dissidents Are to be Tried Tuesday for Crimes Against the State.
I did via the “Contact Us” link on his campaign site. If enough of us do something like this, maybe he will change his tune, but I doubt it.
Here’s a start:
History’s biggest, goofiest pity party just keeps on a’rollin.
Now that I think about it, I don’t think Al has a Pulitzer or a Tony yet for losing the Presidency. Somebody’s slacking!
I see Dr. Edward Teller is on the list. I'm pretty sure he's been peer reviewed.....more than once......
I suggest you glean through the 31,000 names and check out their CV for yourself.
I say their credentials are valid to debate this issue from an opposing view. You find the facts to disprove me.
I’ve been through this argument- when the journals and books that global warming critics publish are cited, the argument by the liberal left intellectual mafia is that they are not “peer reviewed”. Not withstanding the fact that “the peers” have their panties tightly twisted enough to sneer about the substance of those books and journals.
Or they dig into someone’s background and discover that when they were a grad student, he/she worked under a grant from - gasp- a petroleum institute or GE or some evil commercial entity that is out to rape the planet. Or they spoke at a symposium or receievd funding through the Discovery Institute. How liberal intellectuals HATE the Discovery Institute. Bunch of anti-scientific knuckle dragging neocon creationists. So how could their discoveries possibly be considered valid? Dismissal of the messenger’s worthiness to be heard is the form or “peer review” usually practiced. (But check out the CV of the scientists affiliated).
Frankly with the PC attitude of our universities and even our Govt institutions which are staffed by anonymous but rabidly liberal minions, peer review means - censorship. Soft or hard.
So, it is hard to get “peer reviewed” when the peers have their minds made up, when you are censored from receiving funding to challenge those veiws, when you have to climb over high hurdles and find secondary sources to publish, and when the ultimate weapon is censure (ridicule, professional shunning, or even job loss) if you manage to do so. The “peers’” tactic these days is to attack and discredit the speaker, thus leaving themselves
(so they believe) immune and far too intellectually superior to debate the weight of his argument.
For an example of this elitist censorship, check out the scientific credentials of Rickard Dawkin.
“Not peer reviewed” is a rather ingenuous and vacuous standard, in this day. But hey- knock yourself out.
But also check out the CV of those who criticize them. For starters, have you checked out global leader Algor’s scientific background?
Here ya go, from the past but similar initiative. This was a similar project undertaken by global warming critic Frederick Seitz in the late 1990’s.
Over 31,000 (brave) scientists are listed. The criteria for being included on the petition, the names, the qualifications and an overview of peer review, is provided.
well there goes their future funding at the global warming trough.
“Check out the credentials of Rickard Dawkin.”
By this do you mean Richard Dawkins? While there are references to Rickard Dawkins on Google. In fact his name is Richard Dawkins, and he has an MA and D.Phil. from Oxford Univ. His genius is in synthesizing a number of different approaches to scientific information and developing a new paradigm.
In looking over the credentials of thed 31K petitioners I see that physicist Edward Teller is headlined at the top. He died in 2003 at the age of 95, and the petition was from 1997 objecting to the Koyto agreement. There certainly were flaws in that agreement, so what is presented about Teller does not indicate whether he rejected the problem of climate change, merely the conclusions at that time. Of course, George Bush rejected the problem at that time, but now, 5 years later he seems rather convinced. How old are the signatures of these 31K scientists, we need to know their current views and even if they are still alive.
In addition, I note that almost 10,000 are engineer, mostly electrical. Where is the list for civil engineers, who are the ones who will have to deal with the flooding of cities and other major storm damage. In all there are only 40 climatologists listed, and I would love to know who they are so I could examine their credentials and state of aliveness. There are many more meteorologists listed, but they do not usually understand climatology very well, as the technical focus is quite different as is the education.
I hope this is enough facts. Give me more details, I will give you more facts.
“His genius is in synthesizing a number of different approaches to scientific information and developing a new paradigm.”
barf alert. His bio is heavy on prizes for literature and humanism and a bit light on hard science. Funny how critical his intellectual type is on others like himself with opposing “paradigms” which they critiques as being light on hard science.
Anyhow, I too have a differnt approach to scientific information and I am close to developing a whole new paradigm - if only I had time between loads of laundry.
BTW, I did indicate the link I gave was to a previous petition from the 1990’s, not the current one. I am not going to go seek out the current one so you can find one spelling error or flaw and discredit it - and me. LOL!
If you cared to seek facts rather than argue, you could answer your own questions about the petition link I did post, because the name of every signer as well as his/her credentials is included in the data at the link.
And before you plink on one or even more of the petitioners’ qualifications - a broader question- Do you need 30,000 climate scientists to make an argument that disproves the current hype that man controls the climate- or isn’t one well-qualified skeptic capable of presenting facts that dispel a much larger myth? There weren’t 30,000 Galileos. There was only one man who figured out one truth.
Has anyone posted the current list yet, as opposed to the old one. If the numbers are about the same, are the people the same, or have only a few names been added?
I’m sorry if you don’t like my questions, but I have a summer place on a barrier island, and a son and two grandchildren in Miami, so I have strong grounds for concern.
It is not your questions that irritate me. It is the fact that the answers are in the link I posted but you wanted me to go dig them out for you.
If you have strong concerns about climate change, then I am sure you will dig to get better answers than Algor’s mass movement based on assuming humans cause such change and can control it by limiting and changing their personal lives.
Article is from a year ago.
“Probably not much, because apart from conservative websites, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, nobody is going to report it.”
Any good links I get I put on my facebook page - most people ignore them but I do get positive comments occasionally - inform the people let them make up their own mind!
“This needs to be sent to McCain”
Why? Is he out of toilet paper?
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet
Thanks for that.
Well, if they can claim that Fox News is not a “real” news service like CNN or MSNBC then certainly it is no stretch for them to say that these are nor “real” scientists.
If nothing else they turn on the lights in their houses, heat them, and fill their cars. All of that connects them not only to big oil, but big coal too. Terrible!
Google "Vostok ice cores".
Should give you graphs of temperature and carbon dioxide from previous 400,000 years. There were ancient warming periods with high levels of carbon dioxide --- not caused by humans.
Thank you for the links. Regarding ice cores and other measures, I do not doubt there have been other warm periods, that were not caused by man. However, this does not prove or disprove that man is having an influence on this warming period. Regardless of whether we are or are not causing warming, our resources are finite, and we should conserve as much as is reasonable. I for one switched to CFL lights about 12 years ago and have already saved almost $2,000 because of it.
THanks, newbie. I’m on the list and have been for years.
Peer review is also a device by which entire scientific thoughts can be excluded.
If the proponents of theory 'A' are in a position to and decide to exclude from publication journal articles which indicate data support theory 'B' and refute theory 'A', those articles do not get published.
A colleague wrote a paper on paleopatterned ground on White Butte in North Dakota, and his field work indicated that there were indeed permafrost polygons there on the butte, a remnant of the last ice age.
Despite the evidence, the paper was rejected because "...there never has been any permafrost in North Dakota".
Circular reasoning is as pretty as such rejections of valid findings get.
When one considers the reputations on the line and the vast sums of ongoing grant money for findings which enable the manipulation of the entire global economy, mere logical error would seem benign by comparison to the motivation present to stifle debate.
I share your concern. Even if there was no permafrost on the bulk of level ground in North Dakota, why might there not have been on the higher elevation microclimate of a butte. Incidentally, do you know how high this butte is, and can your scientist friend show sufficient variability between the lower ground temperature and the butte surface temperature to include in a resubmission of his article with this argument? At least such modern temperature data could make a good letter to the editor argument.
I believe the the paper was finally published in a different journal.
Note, too, that this happened over 30 years ago, even before science as we know it became quite so politically charged.
While there have often been periods of debate in the past over fundamental concepts or major developments in science, the haggling was in the open, the data were disclosed, the models stripped and examined and advancements made. To some degree, other factors have weighed in, (scientists are human after all), and bias may become evident. Usually, debate and disagreement, while on occasion polarizing, have been open enough that a more correct explanation of the past, present, or prediction of the future emerges.
With AGW/Anthropogenic Climate Change, this has not been the case as politicians and hucksters have seen a joint opportunity to fleece the often innumerate masses. Data have been concealed, interpolated beyond reason, and the methodology masked to hide flaws in both the data sets (measurement error or other factors affecting readings), and the processing of that data to produce predictive results.
While every scientific debate contains an element of 'can you top this?', ultimately, the adherence to theories honest data do not support leads down the career path of the dinosaurs.
It has taken more than a generation to go from the idea of conservation of natural resources and preservation of the dynamic ecology by reasonably limiting the amount of anthropogenic pollution on a changing Earth to the idea of the static 'preservation' of the planet and all that is on it (an impossibility in a dynamic biogeosphere with a long (fossil) record of extinctions--an unfortunate reflection of the widespread superficiality of scientific understanding promulgated in inadequate learning environments).
Perhaps the preservationists can halt continental drift as well. Maybe that will be their next crusade.
For those of us who prefer to know whether the effects of humankind's actions are significant, even to the point of being beneficial or harmful if either, the irresponsible invasion of scientific debate by politicians and soap-sellers is an unwelcome development. One group is interested in twisting the world to their benefit, and the other in...well, selling soap.