The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine – an organization poo poo’ed by AGW proponents as insignificant, ties to “big oil”… the usual mantra – has released the results of their petition drive to American scientists. 31,072 of them who reject the assertation that global warming is a crisis, or that it is caused by human activity.
The release of the list has managed to elude most MSM outlets, but can be found reported in Heartland Organization’s July 2008 newsletter, Environment & Climate News.
Tho SourceWatch has a less than complimentary review of both the OISM and it’s head, Arthur Robinson, the petition has garnered the support of credible scholars.
The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
~~~
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 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 903 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 5,691 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 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.
The Salem-News weighed in on the petition’s progress back in June, saying:
As the Senate prepares for floor debate on global warming legislation, the list of scientist signatories to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition against global warming alarmism is growing by about 35 signatures every day, announced OISM’s Art Robinson.
~~~Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT’s atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences.
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
The petition was mailed out, along with a cover letter from Professor Frederick Seitz – former President of the Nat’l Academy of Sciences.
Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, Seitz served as president on a part-time basis for three years before assuming full-time responsibilities in 1965. Among his numerous honors and awards, Seitz received the Franklin Medal in 1965; Stanford University’s Herbert Hoover Medal in 1968; the United States Department of Defense Distinguished Service Award in 1968; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Distinguished Public Service Award in 1969 and 1979; the Compton Award, the highest award of the American Institute of Physics, in 1970; and the James Madison Medal of Princeton University in 1978. Rockefeller University awarded him an honorary doctor of science degree in 1981 and the David Rockefeller Award for Extraordinary Service to The Rockefeller University in 2000. In addition to Rockefeller, 31 universities in the United States and abroad awarded him honorary degrees.
Seitz was a member of numerous scientific organizations, including the American Physical Society (president, 1961), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the American Society for Metals, the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineers, the American Crystallographic Society, the Optical Society of America, the Washington Academy of Science and a number of European scientific academies. From 1978 to 1983 he served as vice chairman of the board of trustees of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Robinson, himself a biochemist specialist, is described by SourceWatch as an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools” and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war. The entire history by the site offers the usual progressive “snear” in flavor, but provides a career overview that reveals a man with a more than interesting past.
SourceWatch’s dated commentary on the petition, states:
When questioned in 1998, OISM’s Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.” This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science – such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology – and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM’s website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all.
What a difference a decade makes, along with the AGW religion shoved down the world’s throats. A settled science and consensus? Not by a long shot. And as time marches on, the temperatures fall, the JPL’s Auru satellite measuring systems start filling in stratosphere data not previously measured, the numbers of skeptics grow.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
I think it must be quite obvious to everyone by now that all 31, 072 scientists are shills for Big Oil. What I want to know is: how do I get on that payroll? Is there some kind of secret handshake or mailing list? Does the money transfer have to take place in a darkened alley in the dead of night, ’cause I’d rather meet in a public park or a cosy bistro. If truth be known, I’m a little paranoid of dark alleys since that unfortunate PETA incident. Anyway, I really want to know. I could use the cash.
Signed,
Hopeful Skeptic
I have been trying to tell people about the non “consensus” for a while now, where is my big check from the “Big Oil” comapanies?????
It is obvious that the Disciples of the Goracle poo poo anyone that does not go along with their “consensus” and say that it must be “Big Oil” behind them. Well, who is behind Goracle’s Church????? “Big Environmentalist” and governments.
There appears to be a real lack of independent verification in the petition’s history; if you couple that with its association to oil money you end up losing verification and objectivity …two traits in the history of science so esteemed, without their practice, judgment and guidance we would still be doing alchemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition
Citing wikipedia as a source Doug? And your point is that the petition is suspect?
Pot, meet kettle.
P.S. I haven’t gotten my check from big oil either. Fortunately, Halliburton and Blackwater’s checks roll in right on schedule.
Doug… wikipedia? Please… what else would you expect but a “shoot the messenger” bent?
There is only one Eagleman, no David Thompkins (only a single William), no Michael J. Foxes, etal. So perhaps the wiki types would like to update themselves by looking at all the signatures on the list.
Scientists who have died don’t count? Tell that to the cover letter signer… he passed this March. So his opinion doesn’t count?
But then you likely believe that “consensus” actually exists… when it doesn’t. With, or without this petition.
Yes and yes, Mike. I’m sourcing their citations, too.
Rubber, meet road.
MH, I don’t understand your second paragraph.
If you want something to stand as legitimate, then you must defend it; this is standard practice in logic. This petition is questionable. Therefore, as it is suspect, it cannot count as disqualifying the present consensus.
If you’re so confident in the Wiki source, ‘splain their citations that there are duplicate names and stars names they cite that do not appear in this list. Obviously, their info is dated, biased, and incorrect.
You can close your mind to these posts and comments, but eventually Mother Nature will prove you to be the foolish sheeple you and others appear.
I don’t need to delve into the wiki citations. Why? The Or. petition has a history of a lack of disclosure, verification, objectivity, and methodology; theirs is the scientific position that is attempting to dislodge current scientific practice in understanding global warming. Until their practices, in this petition, are open, subject to independent verification, then their practices are said to be under scientific community suspicion.
However, if they were providing complete and full disclosure of the above, then I would have to tackle the wiki citations.
31,072, not enough. If it had only been 31,073 the brain dead liberals may have woke up, slapped themselves on the forehead and said, I still don’t believe it, Algorbage would never lie for $100 + million.
“The Or. petition has a history of a lack of disclosure, verification, objectivity, and methodology;” -dougy
Give it a rest Doug.
view signers here…
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm
more info here…
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1635/2/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
Just because people like Doug don’t want it to be true, doesn’t make it false.
The word “consensus” is being used by AGW believers merely as a means to prevent people from thinking and prevent climate rationalists from talking: “this subject is settled, all scientists agree”.
Using the “consensus” argument, then, is not scientific at all. On the contrary, it is typically totalitarian, closing the debate without having to debate at the same time.
The people that talk about “settled science”, simply don’t want to talk about science. It’s easy to understand: most people with whom you discuss about AGW, just “repeat” things that they have watched in the news; they don’t know a figure; they have never watched a graph. And if they know figures and are really informed, then they will never use the “consensus” argument (this species is really hard to find).
So, the “consensus” argument is quite pathetic, just for lazy people that don’t want to know or don’t want to do their homework or both.
Do we really need to say that there is not such “consensus”? It is useless. Thirty thousand or thirty hundred thousand. They will come up with something, anything, to say that the important ones are the IPCC guys; or they will say that the oil companies are paying, or God knows what.
The way all this AGW debate is happening is suspicious itself. While the climate rationalists try to CONVINCE through arguments and data, the AGW believers try to IMPOSE their faith, using not scientific arguments like “consensus” or demonizing the opponent: “scientists agree, so you have to believe in this”. They don’t want to convince; they try to impose, and that is closer to fanaticism than to science.
I provided all the links to the petition, including the peer reviewed paper sent out with the petition, Seitz’s cover letter and the list of names grouped either by state or by name. Yonason repeated those links and added a couple of other stories that debunk your “wiki” source.
Lack of disclosure?? Doug, every bit of info is there. Go vet it… it’s as open as can be. Go verify the names, their status. Not one thing stopping you. Nothing being hidden. I’m sure there’s a govt grant available somewhere that will pay you to discredit the list…
I don’t get it about you. Al Gore and the IPCC has told you the sun revolves around our flat earth, and the science is settled. So obviously, no one else with a countering view can have any viability, right?
All most of us are asking is not that you AGW religious freaks change your view, but to recognize there there are credible sources who don’t buy into this AGW one bit, and it’s too damn early to be leaping into solutions that merely cause other problems… from economic to environmental.
Yet an open mind amongst the masses appears to be in short supply. Dang sheeple will drive the world’s economy into the toilet if we don’t watch out… talk about driven by “fear”. Geez.
Doug, you cited this:
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer?), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor?).
It was likely the Seattle times (in the rush of course, to try to declare something bogus) confused Michael J. Fox, the actor, with Micheal “R.” Fox, the scientist. He currently writes for the Hawaii reporter, I’ve read a few of his articles and he is decidedly an AGW-skeptic.
Of course, whenever I come across claims such as the above I check them out for myself. I find that unlike some rather lazy journalists, true ‘skeptics’ do that, it comes naturally. I find that proponents of co2 emissions causing unstoppable global warming will swallow anything that supports their existing view, completely uncritically.
Among proponents I find the same claims over and over again, as Richard Lindzen put it, “there is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis.” People see these claims, they repeat them and spread them, but they never really look at them critically. And it is this very habit, this sloppy thinking that turns people away from the climate alarmists’ side (among other things).
Mata, et al.
This petition was cited repeatedly by different posters in previous threads on global warming.
It has also been analyzed and discussed in detail by others, including me. Respectfully, this is old news.
“This petition was cited repeatedly by different posters in previous threads on global warming.
It has also been analyzed and discussed in detail by others, including me.” — Dave Noble
And you were then, as you are now, wrong
Besides, if AGW fanatics are still trying to trash that, and other proofs that there is no consensus, then it’s an ongoing story, and hence not “old news.”
Dave Noble, this petition drive has been criticized since it was going on (years), and before completion. It is recently, perhaps in light of the cooling trends and increased studies coming out, that the name additions have stepped up in speed. In fact, as time goes on and the events change, more become skeptical.
However it is not “old news” as the final petition was just released in the last month. All attempts to sabatoge it, debunk it were premature.
The signatures, the participants are there, fully disclosed along with the peer reviewed paper sent with the petition for the responders analysis.
Again, you, like Doug, are very willing to accept that *some* in the science community, and government at all levels, are telling you that the sun revolves around a flat earth, and the story is closed and the science settled.
The price to be paid if the AGW proponents are wrong is extremely high. Considering that the planet has been cooling for the past decade, not warming, and that only recently did JPL get the TES and Aura satellite launched to measure stratosphere data… combined with the willingness of all to accept that we know little of vapor flow thru the layers and their effects, all point to the fact that such extreme action is beyond premature. It’s economic suicide based on only a segment of science and political activists.
You may be ready to be herded down that road. But you’ll be dragging me, kicking, screaming, biting and fighting. And frankly, Mother Nature is proving you all to be a bunch of dupes.
MH, if anybody is a geocentrist, it’s those that deny that climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
The conclusion that global warming is primarily caused by humans and that it will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 35 scientific societies and academies of science, including ALL of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Even the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.
You and yours are in the minority here. We are standing with Descartes, Galileo, and Copernicus.
Lastly, are you telling me that the petition has now been fully examined by independent objective bodies? If so, pls. provide a link.
“MH, if anybody is a geocentrist, it’s those that deny that climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels” — Dougy
Is his head as dense as a rock? Or, is it as empty as a Vacuum?
T-H-E-R-E I-S N-O C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-S!!!
“We are standing with Descartes, Galileo, and Copernicus.”
Yeah, . . . Leroy Descartes, Bart Galileo, Steve Copernicus, Marie Kerry, and Gomer Einstein. You stand with them, then, and I’ll stay over here “in the minority”.
Bozo!
Check out the language:
“those that deny that climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels”.
Check how subtly the word “deny” conveys all the ideological content of the message: “those that deny…” (We have heard the word “negationist” also, somewhere, sometimes).
Also: “climate scientists”. All of them?
Nobody “denies” that SOME (many?) climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by humans burning fuels”. Everybody knows that.
And as today, only a mind hopelessly lost for common sense and truth, can “deny” that SOME (many?) climate scientists agree that global warming IS NOT primarily caused by humans burning fuels”.
Minority? Even if it was only ONE scientist, he has to be proved wrong for what he says, not for being the only one.
Send in the clowns.
Yes he still does not get it. Not every scientist believes in AGW.
CLIMATE “DENIER” BLOGS, fyi
Thanks yonason. I knew of the Climate Skeptic but not all of the others
I don’t remeber which comment thread the whole thing about “peer review” was on so I am putting it here. Here is a post about what “peer review” is all about