Visit FDBryant3's column >>

FDBRYANT3

Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 88; Links Seeded: 404
Member Since: 3/2006Last Seen: 11/25/2009

17,000+ Scientists sign Global Warming Petition Project

News Type: Other — Seeded on Tue Feb 6, 2007 9:18 AM EST
advertisement

Over 17,000 scientist from a broad array of diciplines have signed a petition that says the following:

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.

Also from the petition:

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
0.5
{"commentId":514898,"authorDomain":"super-structure"}
Jason Coleman

From my comment on a previous thread:

A link to the Wikipedia article on the "Oregon Petition" (which incidently, is over five years out of date and only more climate science has pointed towards anthropogenic climate change since). Quoted there-in, from Scientific American:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

The National Academy for the Sciences also made the following statement regarding the paper and petition:

The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal." It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

…which should be no surprise as it clearly contradicts the understanding at the time (not to mention current knowledge). The entire event was misleading and represented nothing more than a movement to try and confuse the issue of global warming and what policy actions to take regarding it.

{"commentId":514898,"threadId":"74165","contentId":"555012","authorDomain":"super-structure"}
    Reply#1 - Tue Feb 6, 2007 10:18 AM EST
    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"74165","isPrivate":false}
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    {"threadId":"74165","contentId":"555012"}
    Start TrackingStart Tracking
    Stop TrackingStop Tracking
    Back To Top | Front Page