Yeah, I got that petition in the mail an
written by greengoldrush , May 20, 2008

Yeah, I got a petition like that in the mail and promptly trashed it.

...
written by anon , May 20, 2008

Let's just clarify here. The claim of the global warmist is "the scientific community is settled on this issue". Just because someone's specialty is not climatology doesn't exclude them from the scientific community or from making an assessment of the data as it is presented. A scientist, whatever their specialty, has (hopefully) been trained to look at data and judge the veracity of the claims being made based on the data. Al Gore is not a climatologist, neither are most of those pushing for (and using non-scientific scare tactics to promote) carbon controls. Reasonable people, including scientists in other fields, are capable of making these assessments.

Finally, it doesn't take a degree in climatology to understand that the world's climate is far more complex than we mortal men have begun to understand, and to call for such drastic changes based on what we think we can predict right now, seems to more and more people to be "wrong" (a value judgement based on the "facts").

I am all for reducing energy use and finding and developing renewable energy sources, but primarily for conservation and proper stewardship of resource reasons, as opposed to my fear of global warming. I think the scaring about global warming is going to backfire terribly if it is ultimately proved to be wrong, whereas a call for change based on conservation IS a based on rubber-meets-the-road facts (just look at the price of gas and all forms of energy).

...
written by nicster , May 20, 2008

I wonder how many of these "scientists" have conducted any kind of rigorous analysis of the data.

So few...
written by Robbert , May 20, 2008

Considering you only need a PhD and the field isn't relevant. I'm surprised they only got so few.

Thank you
written by J Hardy , May 20, 2008

Just wanting to thank you Ecogeek and Envirowonk for letting me know of my new qualification as a climatologist - I don't have to sign a petition do I?

Ah yes, Cave Junction, Oregon ...
written by josh , May 20, 2008

... a hotbed of climatology research and discovery!

Go figure
written by Bryan , May 20, 2008

Wow, you folks are really hoping for global warming aren't you? Rather than look at their arguments you are all too quick to dismiss them.
You're as bad as the anti-global warming crowd that made up their minds without ever looking at the evidence the other side offers. I guess both sides are a bit close minded

...
written by M. Jones , May 20, 2008

I'd bet that if you formed a petition requiring the exact same qualifications circulated in the exact same way stating that global warming was real, or at least not "definitely false" you'd get near the same amount. Or more.

Why?
written by Jon , May 20, 2008

I'm a person who had always just assumed that human-driven global warming was the case based on things I've read and people I've talked to. I haven't really looked into the evidence either way.

Do any of you know where I can get a comprehensive overview of both positions? Why ought I really believe human-driven global warming is valid?

Thanks!

To Jon
written by Bill , May 20, 2008

Jon, although I don't have details on why climatologists believe that anthropogenic global climate destabilization (ie, global warming) is both real and a major threat but I do know of another take on why we should clean up our act anyway:

http://www.manpollo.org/

This video series does take some time to watch if you watch the whole thing but it is, IMHO, informative.

9,0000
written by carltopia , May 20, 2008

Nine thousand scientists with PhD's is about four times the number on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control, the political organization publishing much fiction about climate change. Of the 2000-2500 top scientist on that panel, hundreds hold PhD's in fields unrelated to climate change. Their qualifications are no more substantial than these 9,000 scientists. That the this petition group invited others with Masters Degrees to sign is not a valid critique of the consensus when weighed against the non-scientists in this field in the IPCC.

There is no consensus on climate change.

Meanwhile
written by David Ahlport , May 20, 2008

Meanwhile there isn't a single scientific institution in the world which denies that manmade actions are a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past few decades.

Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists disagree.

http://www.greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake

...
written by jake3988 , May 20, 2008

If a single person can actually with a straight face tell me we're not doing anything to contribute knowing that the U.S. alone contributes 6 BILLION TONS of just co2 (this isn't inc methane and other global warming components) and say nothing is happening is just insane.

Also, do these morons actually care about the hundreds of other problems this Earth is facing? Like deforestation, our growing deadzone, the plastic soup we've created the Oceans, mercury poisoning our fish, etc etc etc etc etc? Or are they going to blissfully try and convince us not to do anything about that either?

If people actually cared about OTHER problems the Earth is facing, I wouldn't care so much. But they don't. And it sickens me until no end.

I want our kids and grandkids to live on a beautiful blue ball. Not some trashed piece of crap.

...
written by jake3988 , May 20, 2008

On a more rational note there's one key thing to realize here other than the obvious stuff already stated in the article.

First and foremost is that the signatures have been collected over a period of 11 years (Started in '97). I didn't even believe in global warming 11 years ago!

However, that will probably explain why some of the people are dead. Of course, as to why it's still silly to still include them, refer to point number 1.

...
written by J Hardy , May 20, 2008

Very good point in your first comment jake3988. Global warming is now hogging nearly all of the media attention related to the environment whilst ecosystems continue to be trashed. The green movement really isn't very green at all but i guess we gotta start somewhere.

global warming hoax!!!
written by serkan , May 21, 2008

global warming is a hoax!!!!

Typical
written by Father , May 21, 2008

So, you come up with three examples you don't agree with and you throw the whole thing out? Have you looked lately at the IPCC report and its qualifications? I thought not.

Or what about looking at it this way: Even if half of the scientists on that list you don't agree with (people who have the same or higher education then the people whining about them)... that is still an impressive number of scientists... far more then Al Gore would ever admit exists.

Becides. From what I understand about Science, you should take into account all the data, wether or not you agree with it, to form a conclusion. I see environmentalists ignoring data funded by "Big Oil" but not ignoring data funded by "Big Environmental Groups" who they say have no agenda.

This whole topic has turned into a Religious event.

Beware the Church of Global Warming!

...
written by Paul , May 21, 2008

To nicster.

To answer your question, probably many more than those who actively promote the anthropogenic 'global warming' hypothesis.

It seems funny how global warming 'alarmists' never hold their own to the same standard of accountability as those whom they disagree with.

Professional Engineer
written by Herbert Braden , May 21, 2008

The 2007 paper by Robinson, Robinson and Soon, Oregon Inst. of Science and Medicine, provides date to support the conclusion that the current world temperature is slightly below the 3000-year average. Arctic air temperature variations track directly to variations in solar activity since 1880. Co2 is essential for plant growth and increased levels of CO2 create more food and forest. What CO2 crisis?

My position
written by Terra Verde , May 21, 2008

My position is still on the side of those who advocate for the facts that climate change is happening and is a major threat,

not because I agree with them, not that I don't, but that the changes that need to be/will be made for the sake of cutting carbon emissions and conserving resources and stopping "global warming" are JUST GOOD THINGS TO DO.

They are better for our home and ourselves, and I don't understand why people are so absolutely steadfast and adamant in keeping things the way they are now: destructive, wasteful and toxic.

Amusing
written by Jon , May 21, 2008

I find it interesting that so many people on this blog take the time to proclaim global warming is a hoax. There's a very strange agenda out there to discredit global warming. It makes me wonder if people are actually employed to go out on the internet to create dissent.

If I were Big Oil, or Big Coal, I would create a propaganda campaign to discredit GW research. It's an obvious business response to a very real business threat.

We've already seen the propaganda campaign on TV by Big Coal to make us believe they are part of the solution.

...
written by Matthew , May 21, 2008

No, no, all these guys saying it's a hoax are right. The global warming "nuts" are just looking to reduce the global impact of man on our planet, decrease the number of species that are dying off every day at our hand, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and industries (solar, wind, etc.), create incentive to push the boundaries of technological discoveries, and make this planet sustainable longer than for just a few generations.

Yes, global warming is a hoax and they found out. Let's all now quit worrying about things and go back to our walmarts, our bigmacs, our polystyrene cups, our hairsprays, our cancer causing, non biodegrading plastics, our barges of waste travelling the seas trying to find places to dump. From now on I'm going to leave my Hummer running while getting groceries, and demand they double bag everything in plastic bags!

-m.

...
written by RegalPlatypus , May 21, 2008

I live in Muncie, Indiana... *cries*

...
written by owl , May 21, 2008

The Petition is an unedited phone book ... without the addresses or phone numbers. As a proclamation rejecting scientific consensus, it's a bad joke.

The known warming is measured. The known GHG increases are measured. The known pollution sources are measured. The greenhouse effect is understood. If you flunked grade 3 a few times, you may still have trouble calling that a scientific consensus.

The real issues are 1. how bad will it get; 2. how soon will get bad; and, 3. how long will it be bad.

...
written by David Ahlport , May 21, 2008

==The 2007 paper by Robinson, Robinson and Soon==

First off those two Robison's are actually father and son.

Second off the paper IS NOT PEER REVIEWED and full of false statements. It's essentially a scientific tabloid.

...
written by Me , May 22, 2008

The UN has 2,000 "scientists" that stand in oppostition to the 31,000 "scientists."

Not many of those 2,000 plus scientists at the UN have Ph.D's in cliamtology, and many of those 2,000 have bachelor's dgerees in math, etc.

We have a stalemate here, then, between the 2,000 UN "scientists" and the 31,000 "scientists"

Wildlife Biologist
written by Kevin , May 22, 2008

Science is not a democracy. This reminds me of “Project Steve” by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) where they humorously lampoon the practice by creationists of listing scientists who disagree with evolution, as if some how the group with the longer list has the better science.

Presumably this list of 30,000 scientists is presented to create the impression that global warming is a hypothesis in jeopardy of being refuted. Well here is an idea for these 30,000 scientists: How about conducting your own hypothesis testing and publishing your results in peer-reviewed journal like real scientists? This shouldn’t be to onerous of a task when you have 30,000 collaborators.

By the way, how many of these scientists are named Steve?

Global Warming Fatal Error
written by Paul , May 22, 2008

It's too bad much of the 'data' measured to prove 'the known warming' (temperature increase) causing 'global warming' is useless.

A significant number of temperature monitoring stations produce corrupt data because they are located too close to urbanized ares - and are, in fact, measuring the "urban heat island effect".

The consequence of these measurements, skewed to artificially higher temperatures, is far too often erroneously attributed to 'global warming'. It is not. It is a modification of the microclimate caused by the thermal mass of the materials used to construct urban areas.

Also, when I have looked more closely at the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 content, the temperature rise appears to lead the CO2 rise. That indicates that incident solar radiation is the driving force for the change, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions (although they may be a minor contributor).

Of course, you will not hear any mention of these factors from the global warming hysterics.

...
written by rick g , May 23, 2008

"Considering you only need a PhD and the field isn't relevant. I'm surprised they only got so few."

Considering it can be such a career ending position I'm surprised they have that many.

...
written by tralfamadore , May 23, 2008

It seems that the creationists have used the same tactic to get lists of "scientists" that claim evolution is "debatable". Strange bedfellows.

Typical dismissal from Eco-fascists
written by Malagent , May 24, 2008

So what degree does Al gore have?
The much repeated claim is that the science is settled, the debate is over, etc. etc.

This petition was sent out with several pages of data on climate and greenhouse gases - it's also available at the petition website. No degree is required to read the data, research and verify it and come to an informed decision. And those with scientific degrees are qualified to accept or reject the data.

Would this website, Al Gore, or other climate alarmists reject someone who agrees with them because they are not one with a degree in climatology? I seriously doubt they would.

The opening line of this post states without question that you share the bias of the mainstream media which has mostly ignored that this petition even exists.

Timeline
written by justin s , May 26, 2008

1. Causation is difficult to prove even when someone has an experiment that they (or anyone else) can repeat several times, controlling for all variables. Science related to tobacco use had this same problem for many years even when the Association between smoking and cancer was alarmingly proved. But we only have One Earth and get to experiment with it Once! So proof, by the standard of repeatable experiments with a control group are impossible. One more way to put it: there was never any Proof that Haiti was destroying its environment, and it is still impossible to Prove that humans destroyed Haiti's environment, but it is still a historical fact that they did. So let's not wait until it is too late.
2. The signers signed the petition over a 10 year period. Many signed in the late 1990's when there was much LESS consensus. So I bet that some of the signers have changed their minds, in addition to the fact that many signed before much of the current evidence was in. Lastly, scientific discipline DOES matter. Again, if you are looking for the type of proof that a physicist looks for you will fundamentally misunderstand what type of evidence is needed to establish climate related issues as true beyond reasonable doubt.

Gore's Degree
written by Paul , May 26, 2008

I would hazard a guess that Al Gore has a Master's degree in BS.

Al Gore's qualifications.
written by Gianni , May 31, 2008

Al Gore graduated from Harvard University with a B.A. in government (cum laude) in 1969 as a moments research would have indicated. This is a well informed website, it's a pity the comments seem to be less so. The key point, made here a few times, is that irrespective of the 'truth' about global warming, the cost of inaction could be truly catastrophic, whereas the cost of action is just, well, costly and our grandkids will be around to discuss it. It's simply not an equal choice.

The Myth of the Petition
written by KMoon , May 31, 2008

See Myth #2

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

Follow the money trail
written by haydesigner , June 01, 2008

I would be interested to see who/what funds the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Or who funds Robinson, Robinson and Soon.

That may provide more insight than all the names on the list.

RE: "The Myth of the Petition"
written by Paul , June 02, 2008

The Sierra Club's website starts with:

"Myth 1
There is no scientific consensus


The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement about the following fundamental assertions: 1) the world has been warming and will continue to warm for the foreseeable future"


Unfortunately, recent data has determined that such a fundamental claim of global warming hysterics is false.


It has been shown that not only has there been no rise in global average temperature since 1998, but 2007 experienced a significant amount of cooling.


Try researching the correlation between solar activity (such as sunspots) and global temperatures and see what you find.


At one time Greenland looked like Ireland, and at another time the Thames River in England (and New York City Harbor) froze in the winter.


Those climate periods were hardly influenced by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. And current temperature changes fall within the long-term trends established over time.

Global warming real or not...
written by Pascal Bruyere , June 03, 2008

I think that the reality is that we don't know the long term effects of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
OK we see a little bit if temperature increase but we have no clear idea why nor where it is going.
We know however that we are polluting our air and waters through burning coal, oil, and all sorts of industrial and agricultural processes, even though the evarage human is using quite little of this oil and coal... The fear of global warming is a good way to get people moving, however. But the sure, proven problems, are elswhere. One of them is over population. It seems already impossible to provide a decent material life to all without destroying the evironment. If we were less we could have more each, with less impact.

warming
written by mat , June 03, 2008

I am sorry but anyone who believes that human beings are not responsible for the changes in climate, increased air pollution, dramatic losses of global species, and the discovery of a "plastic island" (that has left a large uninhabitable space in our oceans) is ignorant. I do not care if they have a PHD or what qualifications they have. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could be so nieve or narrow minded.

Farming in Greenland
written by Ted , June 03, 2008

A thousand years ago the Vikings were farming in southern Greenland. Today there are no dairy farms in Greenland. The climate was warmer a thousand years ago than today. We humans might be helping this world get warmer but there are long term temperature cycles that most of the supporters of global warming seem to ignore or not know about.

...
written by shy ted , June 06, 2008

I wonder sometimes how far offshore Columbus was before he could no longer hear the laughter of those watching him leave? The laughter that Columbus and the other two ships would sail off the edge of the ocean. 31,000 people watched him sail away that day...

...
written by Global Warming Heretic , June 13, 2008

I wonder sometimes how far offshore Columbus was before he could no longer hear the laughter of those watching him leave? The laughter that Columbus and the other two ships would sail off the edge of the ocean. 31,000 people watched him sail away that day...

Save the planet, hold your breath for 5 minutes.

...
written by Scott , June 14, 2008

Global warming is the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries. Now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. By causing the price of gasoline to rise dramatically, it has lead to the use of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The use of ethanol is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. There simply is not enough grains grown to support ethanol production and supply our food chain. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
It's funny how those criticizing the scientists on the list from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as "unqualified" due to their degrees. Several members of the Institute's staff are well known for their work on the Petition Project. Also, many of the "qualified" "scientists" who authored the United Nations IPCC research review are neither climatologists nor scientists. Further, the authors are not – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

Al Gore
written by Eric F , June 15, 2008

Al Gore studied journalism in college (and theology, if you consider flunking out of divinity school "studying"), and the global warming alarmists take everything he says as gospel. At least the "scientists" who signed this petition actually studied some area of "science." These are journalism majors and self-interested politicians. They actually have a scientific background. You know, for people who claim to be all about honesty and truth, you guys aren't too eager to discuss opposing opinions.

...
written by Eric F , June 15, 2008

Al Gore studied journalism and government in college (and theology, if you consider flunking out of divinity school "studying"), and the global warming alarmists take everything he says as gospel. At least the "scientists" who signed this petition actually studied some area of "science." These are not journalism students and self-interested politicians. They actually have a scientific background. So what gives Al Gore more credibility? Nothing does, unless you WANT to believe him. You know, for people who claim to be all about honesty and truth, you guys aren't too eager to discuss opposing opinions.

The real "Threat"
written by Paul , June 16, 2008

So, the "Guru of Global Warming" (or at least the myth of the man-made version), Al Gore, is an "expert" in the field.

But he has no educational background or practical experience in any scientific field - let alone the atmospheric sciences (just like many proponents and supporters of the hypothesis of man-made global warming). Yet everything that Mr. Gore says is to be accepted as gospel truth by the masses.

It appears that the phenomenon of global warming hysteria is a case of the uneducated manipulating the opinions of the ignorant - on a massive scale.

Should anyone dare to challenge the hypothesis of man-made global warming, the global warming hysterics immediately attack them (and often claim they are employed by various sectors that would be adversely affected by carbon control measures).

The position of the global warming hysterics is clearly that; "WE WILL TOLERATE NO DISSENT!"

Such an attempt to control the thoughts and actions of citizens on a grand scale was the foundation of a now thoroughly-discredited political system that ultimately failed. Its utter failure to even provide for basic necessities and standard of living led to its collapse. It was known as “Communism”.

The fact that the radical proponents of man-made global warming (Eco-Commies) rely heavily on emotional coercion to effect change in public sentiment indicates that there is little substance to their claims. That any hint of an opposing position sends them into a sheer panic lends even more credence to this observation.

Credible scientific procedure demands that all possibilities are investigated for evaluation – not blind acceptance of one position and wholesale derision of others that do not conform to the forgone conclusion that is sought after.

The world is currently experiencing global chaos in the energy and agricultural sectors as a result of the efforts of so-called “environmentalists” influencing governments to “stop global warming”, or even reverse its course.

I wonder who the global warming hysterics will now try to blame for all the problems they have caused which are now threatening civilization.

The Inconvenient Lie
written by Mike , June 20, 2008

Many of the people on the list from the film are not even scientists at all either. It was simply propoganda cooked to emphasize a point by twisting data. This is the antithesis of science. Had I been on that list myself I would be embarrassed and would hope I still had a career due to the loss of credibility. I would imagine that many of the most outspoken about man-caused global warming are only sticking to their story since they cannot admit their mistake either because of ego or the great loss of credibility they will assume if reversing their position.

The "Convenient Lie"
written by Paul Chomik , June 20, 2008

It would appear that many of those actively promoting and supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming are doing so to protect their jobs - or there is much money to be made by throwing world economies into chaos. Even "Guru Gore" makes large sums of money through carbon-credit purchasing schemes. Sounds like a conflict-of-interest to me by not continually informing the public of his involvement.

Since scientific funding for research of global warming appears to largely depend on support for the hypothesis, there is little chance that balanced research will occur. There are instances where those who do not support the man-made hypothesis see their research funding dry up.

Such insidious interference into the integrity of scientific investigation through intimidation and coercion indicates that there is little credible science to support the man-made global warming hypothesis.

To paraphrase such luminaries as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Geobbels and Adolf Hitler; if you lie, the public will believe it - and the bigger the lie, the more they will believe it.

Add to that, ridiculing and dismissing anyone whose position does not conform to the global warming propaganda.

What a great way to con the public into believing that global warming is caused by mankind - and that it can be reversed.

The "Convenient Lie"
written by Paul Chomik , June 20, 2008

It appears that many who actively promote the hypothesis of man-made global warming are simply protecting their jobs - or there is much money to be made from convincing the public that such a global disaster that will happen. Even "Guru Gore" makes money from the scheme of carbon credit purchasing. It appears to be a serious conflict-of-interest for Gore to not constantly inform the public of his involvement.

Funding for global warming research largely depends on supporting the hypothesis. It seems that researchers who do not, see their funding dry up - or they don't get it in the first place. There are known cases where this has happened.

The insidious corruption of scientific research and coercion of those whose views do not conform to global warming propaganda seriously compromises the integrity of the man-made warming hypothesis. Because all possibilities are not considered, rational and unbiased analysis is simply not possible.

That the supporters of man-made warming often resort to ridicule and intimidation of those who position does not conform, seems to indicate a less than credible foundation for their claims. Those who are confident in their research and findings are not likely to be terrified by anyone who holds a contrary position. That is not the case for global warming hysterics who panic when someone challenges the propaganda that bombards the public.

Such tactics reflect historic application of the same methods by leaders who would not tolerate dissent. To paraphrase such luminaries as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler; if you tell a lie and repeat it often enough the public will believe it - and the bigger the lie, the more they will believe it.

It doesn’t seem like much has changed.

Let's Ignore the Science
written by TJ's Anti-Contrarian blog , June 24, 2008

Hey, so what that 31,000 scientists, including climatologists, experts in atmospheric science, the founder of the Weather Channel, and others deny our experts.
I mean Al Gore has degrees in divinity, so he must have gotten this idea straight from God, right?

The petition was one sided...
written by Darryl Edington , June 29, 2008

Why didn't the petition ask those who DISAGREED with it to check a box (NO). So we could get a vote - and not simply hear from those who agreed? From what I see ONLY 6 percent of the people who received it signed it. I guess I'm going to assume that 94% of those who received the petition believe GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!... So there!

...
written by aw , July 08, 2008

I mean Al Gore has degrees in divinity, so he must have gotten this idea straight from God, right?

Can you lot read?

...
written by Allen , July 12, 2008

There is one, easy way to solve this problem, evaluate the main proponent of the issue.

In other words, size up Al Gore.

I've met a lot of idiots in my day, but he could quite easily win the "Presidency" of morons.

Case closed.

GW not working out the way I thought
written by Yahfaf Bogawanfanagn , July 29, 2008

Geez, this Global Warming thing isn't working out the way I thought.

I'm going to join Hare Krishna again. They know how to run a cult!

Qualifications of pro-consensual scienti
written by Damo Mackerel , September 09, 2008

For the IPCC's fourth report two of the lead scientists were an economist and a specialist in fossil faeces. I wonder how many of these 'lead' and 'contributory' scientists for previous IPCC reports were actually specialists in climatology or earth science? Pot kettle black comes to mind.