The Oregon Petition is getting some fresh press...not that it ever got much to begin with. It is covered in Saturday's National Post from Canada, and Michelle Malkin calls attention to the National Press Club release of these names today.
In case you haven't heard about it, the Oregon Petition was started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2001.
According to the National Post, this is the contention of those who have signed the petition:
Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because "increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
As the National Post article examines, the apostles of global warming have tried to cast doubt on the veracity of the petition, but the only instance of genuine fakery was planted by Greenpeace. Claims of duplicate names have been proven to be different scientists with the same name (do you know how many Bob Ellis' there are out there? and not all as famous as me), and some scientists who had the same name as famous movie stars have been verified to be the same name as real scientists.
So how many signatures are there to the Oregon Petition? 50? 100? 1000? Keep climbing.
Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go -- most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.
Does this look like Al Gore's "consensus?" Not even close.
Are we really willing to mortgage our livelihood today and our future tomorrow on some liberal anti-capitalist fantasy? I'm not. Not even close.
4 comments:
The numbers cited are certainly impressive and give an indication of the skepticism about man-made global warming among scientists of all types. This issue, however, must be decided on the preponderance of scientific evidence. It seems that much of the argument from both sides is about how many scientists each side can claim. Science is not about consensus, it is about provable facts. Of course, the facts are on the side of natural cyles of warming and cooling of the earth. The evidence for man-made warming is weak, being based on flawed computer models.
Good point, Dr. Theo. Numbers don't necessarily equate to accuracy or truth.
But this does illustrate that the global warming debate isn't the "settled science" Al Gore claims it is.
"the global warming debate isn't the 'settled science' Al Gore claims it is."
Well, that is certainly true. I love it when the 'warmies' act as though anyone not agreeing with them is a "flat-earther" or "denier," as if we are insignificant worms that should have no voice in the debate.
It's interesting that it was "decided" when Al Gore said it was "decided." And he's a politician with a financial interest in this fraud. It was "decided" when Al and the rest said there was "consensus," which was based on numbers. It was "decided" when the phony U.N. group said it was "decided." But now that 31,000 scientists object to the so-called consensus, well the numbers no longer matter. Some science.
Art -
Post a Comment