# The Factual Argument Against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen Treaty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049 "2010-03-19T19:13:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/101 "2010-03-21T12:14:28Z")
There are too many people on this earth for it to support without ruining its natural systems. The factual argument against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen “Treaty” is that no AGW remedy avoids a ruinous environmental end unless the population is curtailed. Even perfectly clean, ubiquitous and environmentally neutral energy tomorrow would not prevent 9 or 10 billion humans (and many more than that if we can get to unlimited perfectly clean energy) in 2100 from overrunning the earth with catastrophic effects on natural systems just to feed and entertain them. AGW is fun to champion as a Great Cause, but rather misses the point from the standpoint of protecting the earth or its future. Our species has already won the consume-the-earth battle by sheer volume and AGW debates are essentially a pleasant diversion that avoids addressing the real problem of overpopulation, which, in the ultimate irony, tends to be a politically sensitive topic in the same circles worried about AGW. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/102 "2010-03-21T16:56:29Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > So you clearly didn’t look through those links. The moderator clearly advised against posting long paragraphs of text from outside sources. The reasons you should spend the time checking out the links is because they provide further evidence of credible, peer reviewed papers and scientists who dispute Anthropogenic Global Warming. You attempted to belittle the link to the 500 peer reviewed papers linked to previously, even though the rebuttals you cited were tremendously weak and contained some outright lies. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > ]So, why don’t you look through these links and debunk the information they contain, if you can. Because I have seen them before, and they are in most cases based in already rebutted or misleading information. There is a reason why one should demand a quote of the main point, there is no need to quote the whole thing, in fact when one sees people who can not or are unwilling to quote the most important item it shows to many that the skeptic or pseudo skeptic in reality does not understand what the citation say, it is more likely that they were told what to say by denier sources. Take for example the first item: That is the Fool Inhofe and one of the misleaders in chief Mark Morano: > **[U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected](https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/general/one_item_and_teasers/waf.htm)** > > Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected What they do is misrepresent, misinterpret and ignore that in science no single paper is the last word: > [@](#): > > Schwartz’s results would imply two important things. First, that the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will be much smaller than most estimates; second, that almost all of the warming due to the greenhouse gases we’ve put in the atmosphere so far has already been felt, so there’s almost no warming “in the pipeline” due to greenhouse gases already in the air. Both ideas contradict the consensus view of climate scientists, and both ideas give global-warming skeptics a warm fuzzy feeling (but not too warm). > > Despite the celebratory reaction from the denialist blogosphere (and U.S. Senator James Inhofe), this is not a “denialist” paper. Schwartz is a highly respected researcher (deservedly so) in atmospheric physics, mainly working on aerosols. He doesn’t pretend to smite global-warming theories with a single blow, he simply explores one way to estimate climate sensitivity and reports his results. He seems quite aware of many of the caveats inherent in his method, and invites further study, saying in the “conclusions” section: > > > [@](#): > > > > Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models. > > … > > In short, the global temperature time series clearly does not follow the model adopted in Schwartz’s analysis. It’s further clear that even if it did, the method is unable to diagnose the right time scale. Add to that the fact that assuming a single time scale for the global climate system contradicts what we know about the response time of the different components of the earth, and it adds up to only one conclusion: Schwartz’s estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2. > > A response to the paper, raising these (and other) issues, has already been submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and another response (by a team in Switzerland) is in the works. It’s important to note that this is the way science works. An idea is proposed and explored, the results are reported, the methodology is probed and critiqued by others, and their results are reported; in the process, we hope to learn more about how the world really works. > > That Schwartz’s result is heralded as the death-knell of global warming by denialist blogs and Sen. Inhofe, even before it has been officially published (let alone before the scientific community has responded) says more about the denialist movement than about the sensitivity of earth’s climate system. But, that’s how politics works. Unfortunatly Inhoffe and Morano then go to the denialist laundry list with items like “it is the sun, not humans who are causing the current heat rise”. It is better then to check what has been rebutted already, and so please check the list of items here: > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... At least I want to see new criticism instead of posters pointing at reheated baloney in the future. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/103 "2010-03-21T17:06:35Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There are too many people on this earth for it to support without ruining its natural systems. The factual argument against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen “Treaty” is that no AGW remedy avoids a ruinous environmental end unless the population is curtailed. Even perfectly clean, ubiquitous and environmentally neutral energy tomorrow would not prevent 9 or 10 billion humans (and many more than that if we can get to unlimited perfectly clean energy) in 2100 from overrunning the earth with catastrophic effects on natural systems just to feed and entertain them. > > AGW is fun to champion as a Great Cause, but rather misses the point from the standpoint of protecting the earth or its future. Our species has already won the consume-the-earth battle by sheer volume and AGW debates are essentially a pleasant diversion that avoids addressing the real problem of overpopulation, which, in the ultimate irony, tends to be a politically sensitive topic in the same circles worried about AGW. For the umpteenth time, warning that the population increase is the big reason of the problem does not \*\*magically \*\*remove the need to control CO2 or other GW gas emmisions. [http://www.sierraclub.org/population/factsheets/pop\_and\_globalwarming.asp](http://www.sierraclub.org/population/factsheets/pop_and_globalwarming.asp) And I think our species still has plenty of room to consume intelligently and still support a good number of people (Again, this does not remove a constant warning: stop making too many mouths to feed people!) [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/3/pSdnycHfLnQ](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/3/pSdnycHfLnQ) ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/104 "2010-03-22T06:59:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There are too many people on this earth for it to support without ruining its natural systems. The factual argument against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen “Treaty” is that no AGW remedy avoids a ruinous environmental end unless the population is curtailed. Even perfectly clean, ubiquitous and environmentally neutral energy tomorrow would not prevent 9 or 10 billion humans (and many more than that if we can get to unlimited perfectly clean energy) in 2100 from overrunning the earth with catastrophic effects on natural systems just to feed and entertain them. > > AGW is fun to champion as a Great Cause, but rather misses the point from the standpoint of protecting the earth or its future. Our species has already won the consume-the-earth battle by sheer volume and AGW debates are essentially a pleasant diversion that avoids addressing the real problem of overpopulation, which, in the ultimate irony, tends to be a politically sensitive topic in the same circles worried about AGW. You raise an interesting point, one that I addressed in my original post. Much of the concern in the late 60s and early 70s was that overpopulation was the problem, rather than pollution. Did you read any links about John P Holdren and his book Ecoscience? In it he advocates the use of Eugenics to reduce the worlds population. There are many in the UN and those involved with environmental concerns who are very serious about pursuing the agenda of depopulation. They don’t talk openly about this, for obvious reasons. I know I already posted this in my original post, but it bears repeating. Some of the serious proposals laid out in “Ecoscience” include the following: • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food; • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” – in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives – using an armed international police force. How about denying medical care to those who need it? There is no humane and ethical way to reduce the worlds population that any government could undertake. Could you respond to John P. Holdren’s “Ecoscience” and similar proposals made by people in the environmental movement? Here is the link: > **[John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass...](http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/)** By the way, I don’t think population numbers are the problem. The problem is what we consume and how we use the natural resources of this planet. We should strive to live in a sustainable way. If we all lived nomadic lifestyles and rejected consumerism and reckless consumption, our planet could support tens of billions of people easily. Obviously this will never happen. It does make sense that at some point there will be too many people fighting for too few resources. But nature has a way of establishing balance and equilibrium. A massive plague, a comit, earthquakes, or a coronal mass ejection from the sun could wipe out millions very quickly. I think we should strive to be good stewards of the environment but I don’t think we are on the verge of “using up” the planets resources simply due to numbers. Would you agree that any effort to reduce world population by an international elite would require a totalitarian government unlike any we have seen previously? This is scary stuff that men of power and influence are very seriously considering attempts to reduce the numbers of people on the planet. What about Vaccines, or poisoned food, or adding substances to the water supply? These are all things that people like John P Holdren are seriously considering as a means to reduce the population. Whether they actually do it or not, is another matter entirely. Just the fact that they are giving it serious consideration is a scary thought. Do you have any thoughts on this information? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/105 "2010-03-22T07:57:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because I have seen them before, and they are in most cases based in already rebutted or misleading information. > > There is a reason why one should demand a quote of the main point, there is no need to quote the whole thing, in fact when one sees people who can not or are unwilling to quote the most important item it shows to many that the skeptic or pseudo skeptic in reality does not understand what the citation say, it is more likely that they were told what to say by denier sources. > > Take for example the first item: > > That is the Fool Inhofe and one of the misleaders in chief Mark Morano: > > [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord\_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8) > > What they do is misrepresent, misinterpret and ignore that in science no single paper is the last word: > > Unfortunatly Inhoffe and Morano then go to the denialist laundry list with items like “it is the sun, not humans who are causing the current heat rise”. > > It is better then to check what has been rebutted already, and so please check the list of items here: > > [Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) > > At least I want to see new criticism instead of posters pointing at reheated baloney in the future. Look, it appears futile to engage in any sort of discussion of the actual science, since you simply deny the merits of any and all links that I or the other posters link to. There has been A LOT of science posted here that disputes your side of the argument. Your reaction is simply to dismiss it out of hand by labeling those publishing it, “denialists”, as if climate scientists who disagree with your religion are somehow threatening your personal ego, and you react incredulously and defensively. Here’s a rundown of what has been posted already just on this thread: 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Many links dispelling the notion that Co2 is harmful to the environment Numerous other links to peer reviewed papers that dispute your side of the argument Numerous links that document significant error in the climate models Numerous links that show the financial and banking interests who have an interest in hyping up the threat Many links that show the history of the UN involvement in the environmental movement and their goals And since we are on the subject, I’m sure you’ve seen this one: Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Six scientists who dispute that human produced Co2 will lead to serious harm to the Earth’s climate: [http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php](http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php) These include: 1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 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 935 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 5,812 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 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed. 5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth. 6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth. 7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs. I have seen your side of the argument try to refute this list, but the rebuttals come across as desperate and childish. Are ALL of these scientists in the pay of Big Oil? Basically, despite all that has been posted so far, you react with the equivalent of “nuh uh”. The difference between me and you is that I am not claiming that _ **some** _ honest scientists and organizations don’t believe sincerely that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a real problem. I _ **am** _ claiming that the threat is way overblown for political reasons, the IPCC in particular is not to be taken seriously due to Climategate emails and other known scandals and conflicts of interest, and there is substantial evidence that human caused Co2 is NOT causing catastrophic warming on the planet. And there is a massive and significant group of climate scientists and peer reviewed data that contradicts much of what we are being told in the media, and there is a concerted effort to silence, discredit and stonewall any attempt at exposure and public examination of the real scientific data. I’ve asked this a few times already, but why won’t the IPCC release its raw data under Freedom of Information Act requests? This is the scientific argument I am making. YOU, on the other hand, seem to be one who links continually to blogs whose sole purpose is to discredit and trash any and all skeptical science irrationally and without merit. You are claiming that NO SERIOUS SCIENTISTS DISPUTE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING. This claim cannot be substantiated. But since you are so invested in the politics of it all, perhaps we should broaden the debate. Disputing the actual science was not the main purpose of this thread. The purpose was to expose the political agenda behind the modern environmental movement and to centralize power in a world “organization” (if you feel the word “government” makes it sound too conspiratorial for you). I have actually read a draft of the Copenhagen Treaty. I understand who profits from Cap and Trade (Al Gore and Maurice Strong, among others). How about you reread my original post and respond to the agenda behind the environmental movement? What are your views of Maurice Strong, the profiteers of Cap and Trade, the attack on Capitalism and Industry, John P. Holdren, Ecoscience and Eugenics, Edmund de Rothschild and the World Conservation Bank? How about recent moves towards a world central bank and world currency? How about the proposed 700 new world bureaucracies, a world tax, and world police force? Are you for or against these things? We could debate the science all day, but you are missing the critical point I am trying to make. Also, if even some of what I am saying about the vested financial interests and political motivation behind this issue are true, why would it not logically make sense that our media would downplay any contrary science and hype up the danger? You really need to read more and lay off the politically motivated liberal blogs. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/106 "2010-03-22T08:18:18Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > And since we are on the subject, I’m sure you’ve seen this one: > > Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Six scientists who dispute that human produced Co2 will lead to serious harm to the Earth’s climate: > > [http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php](http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php) You are just pushing a fraud there: [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/5/Py2XVILHUjQ](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/5/Py2XVILHUjQ) So no, in reality you are not demonstrating that you understand why or what are the main bits of the papers that you claim are important. Until then you are just pushing disinformation or misleading information. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php) > [@](#): > > Did 17,000 scientists really say that global warming is a “lie”? I looked further and found the actual words of the petition. What they actually agreed with was this: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > So they weren’t saying that it was a lie or wasn’t happening, just that there wasn’t good evidence that it would be a catastrophe. The OISM people have misrepresented their own petition. > > Still, why would 17,000 scientists agree with the far weaker statement above? Well, it looks like that involved misrepresentation by the OISM as well. It seems they were mailed this letter from Frederick Seitz which said: > > > [@](#): > > > > Research Review of Global Warming Evidence > > > > ``` > > 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. > > > > ``` > > Unfortunately, the “research review” they were sent is not a research review of global warming evidence, but just a review of the evidence against global warming. According to the “review”, the earth isn’t warming, it’s cooling: > > > [@](#): > > > > Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly. > > How was the “review” able to claim cooling? Simple. The authors presented the satellite data (which at the time showed slight cooling, but now shows significant warming) but dismissed the more extensive surface data because it had “substantial uncertainties”. The only uncertainty that they mention is the urban heat island effect and what they fail to mention is that the surface temperature estimated by GISS corrects for the urban heat island effect. The “review” is not honest. > > As a researcher, when I see a “research review” I expect that it will cover all the relevant research. I can certainly understand how a scientist who was under the impression that it was a genuine review might be persuaded that there was no good evidence for global warming, especially because the vast majority of scientists who signed were not climate scientists. Furthermore, in his cover letter Seitz identified himself as a past president of the NAS and the typeface and format of the “review” matched that used by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This report from PR Watch explains how the NAS was forced to correct the impression that it endorsed the “review”: > > > [@](#): > > > > “The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,” complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers “are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them.” NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a “past president” of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he “still has a role in governing the organization.” > > > > ``` > > The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "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 stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." > > > > ``` > > Of course, some of the signatories might have signed it even if they were better informed about global warming research. The Scientific American did a check: > > > [@](#): > > > > Scientific American took a random 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. \*\* > > And I can’t help but share the Tech Central Station take on Scientific American’s check: > > > [@](#): > > > > SciAm reported on the Oregon Petition against Kyoto back in October 2001, but rather than being encouraged by the extent of professional opinion supporting an optimistic reading of the evidence, the publication sniffed through the names until the editors found six (unnamed) signatories who apparently have since changed their minds. > > Gee, that makes it sound like they had to search through the entire 17,000 to find the six. And who wrote that highly misleading account of the Scientific American’s check? None other than Ross “no such thing as a Global Temperature” McKitrick. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/107 "2010-03-22T08:37:47Z")
[http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/frederick-seitz.html](http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/frederick-seitz.html) > [@](#): > > The Mass Mailings to Amnestic, Duplicate, or Anonymous Signatories > > The petition, which gave many people the impression it was an official NAS document and had an incomplete and selective review paper attached to it, was e-mailed to a large quantity of people. > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > “Virtually every scientist in every field got it,” says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. “That’s a big mailing.” According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. “We’re not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us,” he says, adding that the response was “outstanding” for a direct mail shot." > > Dr. Steve Reuland responded to this information: > > > [@](#): > > > > In other words, they won’t release their petition methodology for fear that it would diminish the petition’s effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Pathetic. > > But other people did try to analyze Seitz’s methodoloy. In 2005, Scientific American reported: [8] > > > [@](#): > > > > “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.” > > Just for reference there are 20,000 members of the American Geophysical Union and an unknown number of climate researchers world wide. 200 climate researchers is only 1% of the AGU. In 2005 a newspaper reported::[9] > > > [@](#): > > > > “In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?” The main point here is: How can we talk about factual arguments when your arguments are based on misleading information? Then we still have the issue that you still do not demonstrate that you can learn to avoid what was already dismissed or debunked. Or that you understand why the papers that you think are important help your cause. Once again, check what others have done before, stop reheating baloney. Only by understanding the basis of the science is that then one can sincerely discuss what should be the reasonable political thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/108 "2010-03-22T12:53:57Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Sounds fair. Let me know when you’ve started, k? Adolescent sneering is not the same thing as having an actual point. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/109 "2010-03-22T13:21:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, [sourcewatch.org](http://sourcewatch.org) also has their number: > > [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy\_and\_Environment](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment) Sourcewatch is hardly an impartial source; its political leanings are very evident. Gigo, your whole method of arguing on this subject seems to consist of insisting loudly that sources which question global warming must be fools and scoundrels, whereas sources which uphold global warming are the living embodiment of scientific integrity, all the while shouting, “There’s a consensus! There’s a consensus!” over and over again. It grows tiresome. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/110 "2010-03-22T13:23:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You demanded just one survey, what you demonstrated here is > > 1. you do not keep your word. > > 2. you do not look at the citations. > > 3. you are not not be trusted on your say so’s So you’re saying that he wasn’t supposed to notice or remark upon the laughable inadequacy of the survey you presented? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/111 "2010-03-22T13:34:27Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Yeah, thats the problem. He, more than anyone else is responsible for the international “response” and lobbies tirelessly for the United Nations to expand in power and pushed international treaties about “emissions reduction”. He is a very important figure in the international environmental movement. He was responsible for establishing the IPCC, was key in the Rio Summit and the UN Environment Program (UNEP) which established the framework for the Kyoto protocol. Look at these links: > > [ESR | December 24, 2001 | Maurice Strong: Godfather of the international environmental movement](http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1201/1201strong.htm) > [http://euro-med.dk/?p=13721](http://euro-med.dk/?p=13721) > > [http://www.allamericanblogger.com/2667/maurice-strong-and-the-collapse-of-industrialized-civilizations/](http://www.allamericanblogger.com/2667/maurice-strong-and-the-collapse-of-industrialized-civilizations/) You evidently are not familiar with how to make cites on this board. We do not proceed by just posting dozens of links and letting others try to figure out which ones to follow. Instead, you should post the actual quotes to back up your arguments. I’ve followed the links and haven’t really read anything to back up your claims. Moreover, all three of these websites are full of ranting about the United Nations, one world government, the NWO, the Illuminati, the Jewish bankers, etc… Exactly the same sort of batty conspiracy theories that you insist are entirely different from the ones you’re making. Post links to credible sources and then quote the important parts here. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/112 "2010-03-22T13:37:03Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Sourcewatch is hardly an impartial source; its political leanings are very evident. > > Gigo, your whole method of arguing on this subject seems to consist of insisting loudly that sources which question global warming must be fools and scoundrels, whereas sources which uphold global warming are the living embodiment of scientific integrity, all the while shouting, “There’s a consensus! There’s a consensus!” over and over again. It grows tiresome. It is, but that does not make it wrong. That is because why there is a consensus is established also by the preponderance of the papers in favor of AGW. And the acceptance of it in academia, research publications and scientific organizations. As for the source watch thing, once again what is important also is who was more accurate even if one could make the point it was biased. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/113 "2010-03-22T13:54:05Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > So you’re saying that he wasn’t supposed to notice or remark upon the laughable inadequacy of the survey you presented? He requested only one, only to show then that it does not matter if he was wrong on that point. In any case, the numbers he replied with are silly, this is what consensus looks like: > **[Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? — Information is Beautiful](https://informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/)** > > Off the back of the recent Climate Skeptics vs The Consensus image, we were curious how many scientists might make up ‘The... > [@](#): > > Off the back of the recent Climate Skeptics vs The Consensus image, we were curious how many scientists might make up ‘The Consensus’. > > The Skeptical side claims at least 31,486 dissenters in their ranks, according to the [PetitionProject.org](http://PetitionProject.org). That sounds like a lot. But is it? > [@](#): > > Of course, not all **12 million** US scientists therefore agree with ‘The Consensus’. But this puts the PetitionProject’s 31,486 signatories in some kind of context. When one checks by field, 3% the signers of the Oregon petition are/were in computers and math. What is curious there is that deniers constantly tell us that models are not accurate, you would think then that even more than the number that they got would sight up. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/114 "2010-03-22T14:38:01Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Adolescent sneering is not the same thing as having an actual point. You’re right. The scientific arguments have still yet to begin. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/115 "2010-03-22T15:08:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > He requested only one, only to show then that it does not matter if he was wrong on that point. > > In any case, the numbers he replied with are silly, this is what consensus looks like: > > [Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? — Information is Beautiful](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/) > > When one checks by field, 3% the signers of the Oregon petition are/were in computers and math. What is curious there is that deniers constantly tell us that models are not accurate, you would think then that even more than the number that they got would sight up. A blog? That’s it? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/116 "2010-03-22T15:09:34Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > You’re right. The scientific arguments have still yet to begin. Sir, you are the one doing the loutish sneering. You could not possibly be so stupid as to have missed that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/117 "2010-03-22T15:21:15Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > A blog? That’s it? Back with the useless excuse used by others of not looking at the citations? Yes, there is more than that and many others can see how dishonest is to just concentrating on the messenger, one should deal with the sources as well. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/118 "2010-03-22T15:27:27Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Sir, you are the one doing the loutish sneering. You could not possibly be so stupid as to have missed that. Hah! I have to laugh because I do remember how you dealt with the sources on a previous tread after sneering at the CRU and IPCC researchers. On that occasion you avoided dealing with the reality that the tabloid and right wing media lied and misrepresented the “scandals” you never came back to deal with the science and the evidence. And to deal with the evidence that most of the sources that the denialist use are not to be trusted. Just like you are now doing, avoiding looking at the sources that my cites use. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/119 "2010-03-22T15:31:17Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Sir, you are the one doing the loutish sneering. You could not possibly be so stupid as to have missed that. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Back with the useless excuse used by others of not looking at the citations? > > Yes, there is more than that and many others can see how dishonest is to just concentrating on the messenger, one should deal with the sources as well. In this forum you’re not allowed to say other posters are lying or stupid. Please don’t do this again. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/120 "2010-03-22T15:40:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In this forum you’re not allowed to say other posters are lying or stupid. Please don’t do this again. Hmm, I was commenting in general, in general just concentrating on the messenger is just pushing a fallacy. But I apologize for that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049.md?page=7)