Just thought I'd post the news?

Question

I haven't seen a trace of this in the news, so I thought I'd post it here for some people to realize.

Today over 32000 scientists in the U.S. alone have all signed a petition disputing the man-made global warming hypothesis. Here's a link http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Answer 1

What's the motive? Poverty? Geez! I'm a Reagan-Republican who doesn't like to eat where he passed *** and, as such, keep my area clean.

But of FAR GREATER importance is this: whether Global warming is real or not, anthropogenic or cyclical, OIL IS STILL FINITE and as such the price will NOT COME DOWN!!

Here we are in the U.S. with an issue that could FINALLY UNITE conservatives and liberals at least in terms of what must be done and this issue - complex enough to divide half the angels to one side of the pin's head, half to the other...like it matters - this improbable stupidity comes between us.

While even communist China seems more prepared to come to grips with this and develop a plan to avoid fossil-fuelization, the Founder of the world's Liberties, the Greatest Nation in history, the United States is arguing over neutrinos and the square root of negative numbers.

God! Fine! Bury ONE ANOTHER!

I only wish that those who built this nation and those who carry their pride didn't have to suffer this loss to such sub-human larvae.

...

Answer 2

Did you read the letter?  It was posted in such a way I couldn't pull the paragraph that jumped out at me and include it here.  That's okay, it was posted on another site, too.

"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."

Anyone who thinks the increased carbon dioxide is 'environmentally helpful' has been parked in the garage with the engine running and the door closed for a bit too long.  

And:

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries."

Are they nuts?  This phenomenon is driving technological advancement.  I don't get the rest of the paragraph, what he's talking about there.

So hurrah, these guys have an agenda and if the world doesn't agree with them they'll circulate a petition. Can't you smell a rotten potato when it's right under your nose??

Answer 3

That's hardly credible. Anyone can sign those. Send me a few dozen, I'll send them to you, maybe we can make the number "Four Billion Scientists conclude that..."

However, this is (credible)...

(I love the penmanship in that example btw 'PHYSICS' lol)

Come back with something like this and maybe someone will listen...

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007:

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.

InterAcademy Council:

As the representative of all the world’s 150 scientific and engineering academies, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.  

Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.

Joint science academies’ statement 2007:

In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies’ statement 2005:

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences:

In October 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth

As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.

CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

European Academy of Sciences and Arts:

In March of 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration in which they stated, “Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. “

Network of African Science Academies:

In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.

“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”

“The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.”

The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.

International Council for Science:

In October 2007, the International Council for Science issued a “key ICSU statement” which concurred “it is now established beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity. The IPCC is one of many examples of the importance of providing scientific understanding as a basis for sound policy making.”

European Science Foundation:

The European Science Foundation has issued a Position Paper on climate change in which they concur, "There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns." The paper concluded, "While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

In December of 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

Federation of American Scientists:

In their Energy and Environment Overview, the Federation of American Scientists state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond."

World Meteorological Organization:

In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.”

American Meteorological Society:

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.

Royal Meteorological Society (UK):

In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.”

The list goes on and and on...

Answer 4

Let me give you some advice.  When trying to demonstrate the credibility of a specific web-site, linking to another page on the same domain does NOT help.  That's like saying an accused rapist is innocent because he testified on the stand that he was innocent.

60 seconds of research shows that this web-site is yet another feeble attempt by Jeremy Snavely of the prestigious sounding Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, to mislead and confuse people on this issue.  Ya gotta admire his persistence, even though he has no credibility among any actual climate scientists.

Do you have any idea how many people in the world call themselves "scientists"?  32,000, even if that were legit, is but a small percentage.  The ONLY scientists of interest for the issue of climate science, are Climate Scientists. A Urologist is called a scientists, but who the heck cares what he/she thinks about global warming?

Answer 5

Lol any petition that comes out of Usa is bs.  Usa government esp are more concerned with ruling the world then trying to help the survival of man.

What is funny is that the countries that do not start to change will be the ones to suffer more. You seem to think its all about the weather its about resources too.  You will see in the end.



What are you going to do when they run out? Do you think you can keep taking without an effect. Its sceince's age old cause and effect theory.

Answer 6

This isn't a new petition it is the same old petition also known an the Oregon list, it has been shown to be totally fake.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...

It is the work of Arthur Robinson and Noah Robinson

of the Oregon institute, A big metal out building.

Answer 7

Thanks for trying, but I heard those don't hold their weight in water, the real polls for this don't actually get done that often and Internet or mailer polls of this from are completely unreliable.  Anybody sharing this kind of information as if it were fact is just embarrassing themselves as well as the people and the side they respresent.

Answer 8

Because there is an on line petition doesn't mean that these are scientists, that they know anything about global warming and that there is a whole host of dumba$$es that will believe anything if it is on the Internet.

What a waste.

Answer 9

None of this matters why ???  SCIENCE  ISN'T DECIDED ON A VOTE !

Answer 10

What I find sad is that anyone still believe these stupid online petitions, they are pathetic, this is about the third  or forth one and the number of supposed signers goes up wildly each time from 800-7000-15000 and now 32000 one reason for this is that it so easy these days to check the names in google.

eg. three names picked at random:

Harold Elwood Adams PHD, seems to be an inventor of tyre compounds?

http://www.google.com.au/patents?id=D4cw...

T. Theodore Kadota PHD

http://www.amazon.com/analysis-magnetic-...

(a) an engineer (b) note when this was published (1958)

Robert Milton Christiansen, PhD

like three other I tried returned nothing i.e. doesn't exist

Unless they mean this guy

http://drrobertmilton.com/believers.html

a loon of the first order!

If you think this is real and believe it because the site itself says it is genuine.

I will send you the link to my site in which I am selling Venus and don't worry it is genuine I will post a page:

where it is explains that each and every signed petition must be either printed and mailed or was requested and was mailed to every Venusian agreeing to the sale.

So it must be true?

Answer 11

Previous lists from this source have been shown to be nonsense.   An online petition with nothing but a list of names?  No affiliations?  Give me a break.

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

The NAS is particularly credible.  That's 1800 of the USA's best scientists, elected by their peers.  Being elected to the NAS is like winning the Oscar in science.

There's a reason this isn't front page news, and it's not the "liberal media conspiracy".  The "petition" is nonsense.