31,000 Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

31,000 Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

www.telegraph.co.uk

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.

It urged the US government to reject the treaty and said: "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 31-5-2008 by SystemiK]

Is this for real???

I have to admit, this only reinforces my own opinions, however I would like to know what criteria were used to determine what constitutes a "scientist".

Also, I'm not familiar with the British newspapers so I never know for sure if I'm reading a rag tabloid or not.

Anyhow, if true, this would be quite interesting....

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I agree, I think all this 'green' talk is just another money making scam. Supermarkets can start charging for carrier bags, the price of petrol can and will increase meaning the consumer will be paying to help line the pockets of the Government and retail companies.

And as for all this green tax we are paying, where does that money go? I pay the Goverment an arm and a leg on petrol and yet I see no new forests being planted. Instead I see a lot of that money being invested into other money making schemes (more yellow lines, speed cameras, no car zones etc).

Considering they found that the whole solar system is going up in temp, I agree with this...

Unless of course the aliens dont care about global warming either.

This is interesting:

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.[16]

en.wikipedia.org...


The head of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the non-profit organization that started the petition, is Arthur Robinson. Robinson has a ph.D. in chemistry and is also a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Flory]

How many millions of scientists are there on the planet

And how many of these mere 31,000 are actively involved in climate research?

And are they are not aware of the many ways in which humans affect climate other than through GHG emissions?

Yet another clear sign that the scientific 'frenzy' is not yet passed.

I must admit that given the political and media circus surrounding this issue I'm inclined to distance myself from the homo-centric view of the problem, if only because the people giving the message lie more often than they tell the truth.

Meh. Wake me up when the headline reads "31,000 scientists with a relevant research background sign petition denying man made..."

It's an important distinction. If you don't think it matters, and that one scientist's opinion is as good as any other, head down to your eye doctor next time you have a toothache. They are both technically scientists, after all...

Don't really care.

Anything that gets man to believe he is responsible for Mother Earth - - and acts accordingly - - is correct & accurate as far as I'm concerned.

GO Gore!

Folks,
Carbon dioxide is 0.4% of our atmosphere. It's not even 1 percent.

If we raised the carbon dioxide by 100 percent, that would be 0.8%.

How can something that is less than 1 percent send out climate into a death spiral?

When I tell this to people who claim global warming is caused by man's machines, they look at me like a deer in the headlights; as if they didn't know this before.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by ATS4dummies]

Originally posted by ATS4dummies
Folks,
Carbon dioxide is 0.4% of our atmosphere. It's not even 1 percent.

If we raised the carbon dioxide by 100 percent, that would be 0.8%.

How can something that is less than 1 percent send out climate into a death spiral?

When I tell this to people who claim global warming is caused by man's machines, they look at me like a deer in the headlights; as if they didn't know this before.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by ATS4dummies]

Here is your answer:

The earth�s surface absorbs visible radiation from the sun, which causes heating. At the same time the surface and the atmosphere emit infrared radiation back to space, which produces cooling. Our eyes cannot see infrared radiation but we can feel how our skin absorbs it when we are standing next to a hot object without touching it. Over a long period the earth�s surface temperature will remain approximately constant because the amount of heat absorbed as visible light is equal to the amount emitted as infrared light.

Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together comprise more than 99 percent of the atmosphere. None of these three gases absorb either visible or infrared light; both types penetrate the entire atmosphere. It is as though, when it comes to the absorption and emission of light, the atmosphere�s three main components do not exist!

The next most abundant gases--water vapor and carbon dioxide--do absorb a portion of the infrared heat radiated by the earth's surface, thereby preventing it from reaching space. Instead of dissipating into space, the infrared radiation that is absorbed by atmospheric water vapor or carbon dioxide produces heating, which in turn makes the earth�s surface warmer. This is known as the greenhouse effect and without it our planet�s surface would likely be frozen, like Mars. The heat absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide is shared with all the nitrogen, oxygen and argon, because the latter molecules are always bumping into water vapor and carbon dioxide as they mix in the atmosphere. This effect makes the atmosphere act somewhat like a blanket that becomes thicker when amounts of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other �greenhouse gases,� such as methane and nitrous oxide, increase. The top of the blanket remains cold and continues to emit about the same amount of infrared to space but below the blanket it gets warmer because it is more difficult for the heat to rise to the top.

The heating effect of extra carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and many other minor gases can be calculated with confidence based on the absorption properties that have been measured carefully in the laboratory. Currently, the total heating produced by the increases of all long-lived greenhouse gases (excluding water vapor) since preindustrial times is equal to about 1 percent of all solar radiation absorbed at the surface. The effect would be somewhat similar if the sun had started to shine 1 percent more brightly during the 20th century.

Water vapor is excluded from the above calculation because it is an intimate and highly variable part of the climate system itself in the form of clouds, rain, snow and other weather. The long-lived greenhouse gases, however, can be considered an external forcing clearly influenced by human action. Most climatologists expect that on average the atmosphere�s water vapor content will increase in response to surface warming caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases, further accelerating the overall warming trend.

It will be difficult to slow or stop this global warming, thanks to the oceans, which are warming as well. Currently, the amount of infrared heat radiated back to space is slightly less than what we absorb from the sun due to the increase in greenhouse gases. This excess energy slowly warms the oceans. Although it takes them a very long time to heat up, once they have they will release more infrared radiation and the Earth will emit as much back to space as it receives from

the sun due to the increase in greenhouse gases. This excess energy slowly warms the oceans. Although it takes them a very long time to heat up, once they have they will release more infrared radiation and the Earth will emit as much back to space as it receives from the sun. But the planet�s surface will be warmer, because a larger fraction of that infrared will be blocked by the blanket of greenhouse gases. Thus, we can expect about another 0.5 degree Celsius of warming even if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to stop increasing today, which is unlikely as we continue to burn coal, oil and natural gas for our increasing energy needs.

Small changes in the Earth�s heat balance can lead to large climatic changes. For example, the ice ages during the last several million years--and the warmer periods in between--appear to have been triggered by no more than a different seasonal and latitudinal distribution of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth, not by a change in output from the sun. The geologic record shows that the differences in ice cover, sea level and precipitation as well as in plant and animal populations were quite dramatic between the ice ages and the warm interglacials. Yet the global average temperature differences corresponding to these radically different climates were only about 5 degrees C in the tropics and 8 degrees C in polar regions.

At this point, the Earth is probably on the threshold of an entirely new epoch in which the global climate and the distribution of life will be strongly influenced by a single species: humans. Some are calling this new epoch the anthropocene and it is all thanks to our increasing the relatively small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning the vast stores of carbon trapped inside of the fossil fuels that power our modern lives.

www.sciam.com...

Originally posted by ATS4dummies
Folks,
Carbon dioxide is 0.4% of our atmosphere. It's not even 1 percent.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

CO2 is about 400 ppm, which means parts per million. That would be 400/1000000 = 4/10000 = 0.0004 = 0.04%. I think that's right.

I'd like to see some data that relates CO2 ppm per degree rise in global temperature. Anybody know of such a relationship?

And please, spare me the Al Gore charts. They're useless. I'm looking for a mathematical relationship, not a flawed cause/effect historical relationship.

Whatever....................Man will eventually do something maybe on purpose or accident to kill half of us off the face of the planet (knowing these days nuclear weapons (maybe it will take one slip and perhaps make Russia ticked off at the USA, a war with Iran? Dont forget China on the rise, smart people creating viruses) ......this is the sad reality. I bet if another country wanted to they could creat such a virus to kill many people.

And then when we nearly kill eachother off the planet, the few surviving repopulate again with a "new world", that even if Global Warming if even is a reality wich NASA states exactly that the sun is going to be extremely hott hot hot in 11 years.....

We are already on a global food crisis....Scientists are always unpredictable as a psychic with a crystal ball....you really never know whats going to happen when the earth changes.

Maybe 2012 is true (my opinion, but we do know the world is getting more and more on whacky ride to confusion)


[edit on 31-5-2008 by CosmicVegeta100]

31,000? Is that ALL?

Does the survey group have any idea just how many scientists there are out there?

If you saw the % results... I guarantee you, it would cease being news worthy.


I have another question. Do these scientists have anything to do with the global warming research? Or are they just random selections of scientists working on things such as foot fungus, to the next best absorbent maxi pad?


If you want a real study group, question the scientists WORKING on the study of global warming... not some random guy who has nothing to do with the research.


I love how these survey groups attempt to make scientists look like their idiots one day... then the next they attempt to use them to justify their claims.

Clear evidence of a losing argument.

This is something I have said since the 70's and the first mention of global warming, even in elementary school it made perfect sense to me that what was happening was a normal earth cycle and essentially there is nothing we can do to change it , lessen it, or stop it. But with more knowledge now in 2008, we know that the same gases we worried about destroying the planet are what we need to improve the conditions. But this does not dismiss that global warming is taking place, it is, it only dismisses humans as the maker of it.

This is bunk, and old bunk at that.

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.
[...]
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."
[...]
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. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

www.sourcewatch.org... f_Science_and_Medicine

Some information on the institutes' findings.
www.realclimate.org...
oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
Sigh...

No matter how many scientists sign a piece of paper you can't ignore these simple facts:

1. Mankind hasn't been burning fossil fuels that long. The earth does indeed recycle itself, but we pushing that system faster than it can do it.

2. The more you burn, the more particles are released into the atmosphere.

3. We should have been using the earth's gravity for power a long time ago and this is just another push for Oil, Nuke, Coal power.

Don't be fooled.

The problem with the global warming thing is it gives the whole "wanting to pollute" group a "guilty or innocent" marker, and as long as its in debate they feel its ok to go on polluting and destroying all they want. Forget for a moment the whole global warming thing. There is a 7500 sqft dead zone at the mouth of the mississippi river where nothing can grow or live in the ocean. There is a mass 3x the size of texas of garbage in the pacific. Our fish are dying our food is poisoned and our water is dirty and nigh undrinkable. THESE are perfect reasons for any reasonable person to limit our destruction even without the whole global warming thing.

Governments are trying to make the remaining oil last longer or there will be economic collapse and anarchy. Tell people that it's for the good of the planet to avoid panic