31 000 American scientists cancel global warming

[Wildfire_MM]

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

have we been fooled by environmentalists, scientist and politicians?
The scientist seems to be far more divided than earlier

[Squink]

The Oregon petition is earlier.

[Frank]

@Wildfire**MM

The scientist seems to be far more divided than earlier

First off, how are these people defined and identified as “scientists”, and second off, what are their areas of knowledge?

[Lightnin]

I wonder:

A) How the professional qualifications of the signers were verified,
and
B) How many of them were actual *climatology *scientists?

[brazil84]

@Wildfire**MM

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

have we been fooled by environmentalists, scientist and politicians?
The scientist seems to be far more divided than earlier

It seems their definition of “scientist” is rather broad.

[tomndebb]

Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux

A random sample (the first five names from the list alphabetically) would be Earl M. Aagaard, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron.

1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).

5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

[MrDibble]

Gosh, it’s like deja vu all over again…

[MrDibble]

@tomndebb

Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux

. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).

This makes my vets & farting cows comment in the other thread seem quite synchronous!

[jayjay]

Doesn’t surprise me. When you have no living idea how science actually works, you tend to lump all scientists in as equal experts because they do “science”, rather than one of the increasingly numerous subspecialties of that discipline.

[bdgr]

Boy, these people are paranoid. The form in order to prove you are a scientist has cut and paste locked out…it’s a pdf

And it’s encrypted, so you cant print the PDF using distiller to get a PDF that you can copy from.

Luckily, miscrosft has their PDF like thing, and you CAN print it as an xps

which you can then open with acrobat, and copy from

Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the
analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD
degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

I’d say that’s pretty damn broad…I know bartenders that qualify.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Wait…I have a BS (ha!) in History and Communications Science. Does that count?

What about my pal Greg? His BS is in CompSci! See? It’s got Sci right there in the name!

[jshore]

@MrDibble

Gosh, it’s like deja vu all over again…

Just to be more specific…Here is the post in that thread where I gave a little history about the Oregon petition project. (Note that the petition is about 10 years old now too…And, the science has advanced a lot in 10 years.)

[jshore]

Also note how they advertise their “peer-reviewed research paper” without noting that the journal where it was published was the well-respected climate science journal called the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Here is how Wikipedia describes this journal:

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[24][25] is the journal of the association. Its mission statement includes “… a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine, the pursuit of integrity in medical research … Political correctness, dogmatism and orthodoxy will be challenged with logical reasoning, valid data and the scientific method.” Articles in the journal are subject to a double-blind peer-review process.[26]

Some past articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued:

* that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[27]
* that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[28]
* that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,[29]
* that HIV does not cause AIDS,[30][31]
* that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[32]

A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for the existence of a link between abortion and breast cancer;[33][34] such a link was rejected by a National Cancer Institute workshop[35] and is not recognized by major medical organizations such as the American Cancer Society[36] or World Health Organization.[37]

The journal is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[38] nor the Web of Science.[39] The World Health Organization found that a 2003 article on vaccination published in the journal had “a number of limitations which undermine the conclusions drawn by the authors.”[40]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[41]

Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the “house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]” and “is barely credible as an independent forum.”

[GIGObuster]

Meh, that OP list is like a list of Scientists (and many who are not) who do not do climate science.

Back in the real science world:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[1010011010]

The problem is that whether the change in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or rising global temperatures have anything to do with human industrialization is largely irrelevant. You can trend the data, regardless of the cause, and it’s not going anywhere that looks good for the current way the human population lives.

[Frostillicus]

Hey, my teaching certificate is in Social Science, so does that mean I am a scientist as well?

[bdgr]

@Frostillicus

Hey, my teaching certificate is in Social Science, so does that mean I am a scientist as well?

Download the form, fill it out, and mail it in…I bet they include you.

[Voyager]

@jshore

Also note how they advertise their “peer-reviewed research paper” without noting that the journal where it was published was the well-respected climate science journal called the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Here is how Wikipedia describes this journal:

Which only goes to show that peer review breaks down when the peers are a bunch of morons.

While I’m not knocking a BS in a science, I think that a MS or PhD is required for credible support. And in a relevant field. I wonder if those of us with degrees in irrelevant fields can write in and cancel out one of the signers. Those with relevant degrees should be able to cancel about 100.

[elucidator]

…George Baker Adams, PhD, Neil Adams, PhD, Leonard Caldwell Adams, PhD, Phillip Adams, PhD, Harold Elwood Adams, PhD, Gail D. Adams, PhD, Roy Melville Adams, PhD, Louis W. Adams, PhD, John Edgar Adams, PhD, Gerald J. Adams, PhD, Wilton T. Adams, PhD, William M. Adams, PhD, Brook W. Adams, Lewis R. Adams, William John Adams, Steven W. Adams, John Adams, William P. Adams, Dwight L. Adams, MD, Dell H. Adams, Ann S. Adams, Bryan C. Adams, Anthony W. Adams, MD, Richard L. Adams, William W. Adams, Eugene Adams, Walter F. Adams, Henry J. Adams, Richard Ernest Adams, Donald Adams, Opal Adams, Howard J. Adams, Richard W. Adams, MD, George F. Adams, Kent A. Adams, Daniel B. Adams Jr., N. Adams, Steve W. Adams, William D. Adams, Roy B. Adams, Jim D. Adams, William J. Adams Jr., Albert H. Adams, MD, James William Adams, Charles K. Adams…

A glaring absence of Cecil. We can move along now.

[BrainGlutton]

I have a master’s degree in library science and I say AGW-denial is a bunch of hooey, so there.