Friday, March 27, 2009

Global Warming Petition Project

A couple of interesting happenings on the Global Warming front. According to this report:
A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Meanwhile, I link to the Global Warming Petition Project which looks pretty interesting and I encourage you to check it out. According to their site:
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.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.


Burgess Laughlin said...

I have doubts about the value of petitions relative to the great investment of time and money made in them. With that reservation, however, I hope this petition succeeds in attracting some attention and in weighing in against one element -- consensus -- of the Environmentalist rhetoric for ecostatism.

I examined the FAQ and the project administrators do seem to be checking the validity of the signatures. My concern though is that the signatories, whatever their degrees might be, are not actually scientists in the same sense that the members of the IPCC are: actively engaged in climate-related research. I hope that does not become grounds for dismissing the petition.

One very encouraging factor is that the petitioners are very assertive. They are not merely doubting, but rejecting. That establishes groundwork for public debate on equal footing: assertively for and assertively against.

seine said...

If President Obama manages to sign on to the UN proposal, it will be a long, cold night for the world,
Doug, are you aware that Dr. Arthur Robinson funded the petition project out of 'Access to Energy' subscriptions and donations from readers? He and two sons run a self-funded research facility in southern Oregon call the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine. web
Also the climate knowledge credentials of the signators is far superior to the IPCC people and he has been a tireless fighter against the global warming crowd from the day they started.
He was very reluctant to do the petition project because he maintains that truth has nothing to do with numbers of believers
It may be obvious, but I admire the man greatly and have subscribed to the newsletter from before the time that he took it over from Petr Beckman, an acquaintance to Ayn Rand. There much more to the story if you're interested.
gary seinen

seine said...

By the way, he was a speaker at the Heartland Institute climate forum a couple of weeks ago where most of the speakers were also signitors of that petition.

Doug Reich said...


Thanks for that info. Let us know as much as you can if you don't mind. I am not familiar with Robinson. Is this petition attracting any attention? I heard about it in an email but haven't seen any headlines.

seine said...

The petition, published in May of last year, has been greeted with thundering silence. I'm guessing because of the number of gored sacred cows. The activists know better than to acknowledge an unbeatable opponent and the media and pandering politicians see no value in disturbing a easy source of cash and votes.

Like the 'sale' of Objectivism, change is painfully slow, but this is a critical time to block the Obama administration's plan to implement CO2 cap and trade legislation.

Doug are you aware that the EPA, now lead by Carol Browner, a card carrying socialist, has a mandate from the Supreme Court to act on their decision to label CO2 a pollutant? The IPCC meeting is only one of a number of fronts where global warming legislation may cause us to freeze, as the administration has the ability to bypass Congress.

Michael Labeit said...

"Ecostatism" - very creative.

I personally would like to delve into the methodology of the global warming alarmists. After all, the primary problem of all erroneous philosophical, ethical, and pilitical convictions is bad epistemology.

If it were said that alarmist warming predictions were concluded exclusively from computer models, than such conclusions would be very dubious. Computer model inferences are examples of enumerative induction, a method which, while critical, can form only uncertain conclusions. A good enumerative induction requires multiple premises:

"It has always rained in NY in April, therefore it will rain in April this year" is far more inductively valid than "It rained in NY last year, therefore it will rain in April this year."

The former employs far more premises, though they are condensed into one proposition.

I always have been suspicious of the methods of enumerative induction and statistical analysis employed in these studies. Instead of deserving a in depth examination, they often attract only a footnote. The fantastic conclusions, flamboyantly advertised, end up receiving far more attention.

I guarantee, if one were to subject the studies of alarmists to proposition-level scrutiny, non-sequitors would begin emerging.

Doug Reich said...


Interesting comment - thanks. I absolutely think that this issue relates to flaws in their method of induction. Primarily, these flaws relate to the nature of cause and effect and how to properly account for potential error in a scientific hypothesis. Let me give you my take.

Certain causes will give rise to certain effects. Computer models capture this dynamic with the "if-then" statement. However, such models are only as good as the "if-then" statements upon which they are based ("junk in - junk out"). In reality, a system like "global climate" is caused by many factors including the sun, the oceans, volcanic activity, soil, etc. and many factors which are not at all or only partially understood (as I have detailed in various past posts). This is why it is difficult for weatherman to predict the temperature and weather patterns for much more than a day or so.

A minor (much less a major) causal factor can give rise to effects which are virtually impossible to model even if we understood what they are! Given the fact, that we do NOT understand many of the causes, it is impossible to forecast all the possible effects. For example, in my post "Oh, By the Way" ( I detailed how a recent finding related to "black carbon in soils" is much more significant than human C02

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined.
end quote

Additionally, in past posts "Maybe It's the Sun - IMpossible" ( I detailed how scientists do not fully understand the affect of solar variation on the earth's climate.

The La Nina and El Nino weather patterns have had a massive impact on global weather recently which dwarfs any possible effects from CO2.

This is not a knock on "science". This process is essential to science and properly to induction. One can state that a certain cause will give rise to a certain effect (HOLDING ALL OTHER FACTORS CONSTANT INCLUDING ONES I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT). This is what makes science difficult. A good scientists must understand potential error to understand the relationship of the magnitude of that error relative to the relationship being studied. If one is studying how ant's behave while stepping on them, I imagine it might distort your findings a little. In the same way, climatologists who offer their findings on the basis of computer models which do not fully account for causes which evidently can be factors of 10 more than the factors in current models are being dishonest if they do not reveal the limits of their hypothesis.

I do believe that many of these scientists are motivated politically by environmentalism and/or by the incentives offered through grant money which is plentiful in this area if you tow the line with your findings. I'm glad to see a major movement in science to counter these claims.

I look forward to your comments on this.

Doug Reich said...

Another case in point re error compared to forecast:

Through March 31, tropical cyclone activity worldwide is still at 30-year lows and actually has nudged slightly lower than last month in terms of integrated energy or ACE. TC energy levels are still at 30-year lows and have sunk to levels not seen since the late 1970s. This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectable or perceived global warming impact when it comes to measuring yearly integrated tropical cyclone activity. See Climate Audit guest blog posting for the DrudgeReport linked story March 15, 2009

Did Al Gore mention this fact which "should not be a surprise" when he claimed that more hurricanes were coming due to GW?

seine said...

Doug, you may consider me a pest before I get tired of posting on this subject but here is a link to Dr. Fred Singer who pretty well invented satellite temperature measurement and has run the site, for many years.,%202009.pdf

The reason I write, an earlier post questioned the scientific credentials of the 'petition signators' as compared with the IPCC people. The 'I' stands for Intergovernmental - they are not a body of scientists, rather they are bureaucrats. The reports are not reviewed by the contributing scientists and many individuals who have submitted reports, have express public disappointment at the mangled data in the final report.

Doug Reich said...


I have heard of Singer - thanks for the link - re pest, please comment as much as possible - I appreciate the excellent insight and links - I have been posting about GW for a couple of years and need all the help I can get!

Anonymous said...

Turns out less than .5% of the "scientists" actually have a background in climate science...
.5%. Dentists, doctors, constuction managers, and lots of unknowns. What a political joke

Doug Reich said...

The last comment was very misleading - see here

Second, truth is not a function of quantity of believers, otherwise Islam and Catholocism would be true.