31,000 American Scientists, 9,000 PhDs Say “No Convincing Scientific Evidence” For Man-Made Global Warming

Edward Teller

Huh? I Thought Global Warming Was Caused By People

Edward Teller was a scientist who died in 2003. Even folks who didn’t support his life’s work still consider him to have been a fairly smart individual. Besides having a PhD in physics, Teller was one of the scientific wizards behind the USA’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980’s. He and the SDI team developed the technologies to shoot down multiple missile warheads during reentry. I can’t even begin to imagine the mathematical equations behind that solution. (As a pilot, I could barely perform celestial navigation calculations before GPS units became widespread in cockpits.)

As I said… Edward Teller was a pretty smart guy.

Oh yeah… Teller is also called “The Father of the Hydrogen Bomb”.

So, whether or not you have some trouble with the fact that he spent his life developing weapons, it is somewhat difficult to argue that Edward Teller was not an intelligent and serious scientist.

That is his signature at the top of this article, and here is what he and 31,000 other American scientists have signed…

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. 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.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other green house gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effect upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

… from the Global Warming Petition Project website (link here)

You can read what Edward Teller signed for yourself by clicking on the following image thumbnail…

The Kyoto Accord Is Primarily An Economic, Political & Social Strategy – Not An Environmental Initiative

Believing that global warming is caused by human activity and can therefore be controlled has become a matter of religion. No dissent is allowed, and as many scientists know – scientific data that does not support the global warming religion is excluded from the record and public discussion.

How many people know that the earth experienced a tremendous period of global warming during the medieval period – and that the data has been systematically ignored by many Kyoto proponents? Why would scientists who have no agenda ignore such data? By all means scientists could dispute the data, dispute the analysis and argue against one position or for another… but when scientists deliberately ignore scientific data that does not fit their views, we should be asking why.

How many people have stopped to think about the actual economic, social and political results of implementing the Kyoto Accord?

Have you?

You should think about it, because our Barbados government and civil service bureaucrats have used global warming for years to justify all kinds of actions and spending on your behalf.

Now folks, don’t take my article or my questions as some sort of an indication that I think we should all drive monster SUVs, abuse the environment and continue to be held hostage by an addiction to oil-based energy. We cannot continue to waste and pollute – or to ignore the 80 percent (or whatever the figure is) of the world’s people who go to bed hungry every night.

But neither should we shut off our minds and unquestioningly accept the one-sided agenda-driven global warming religion that is being pushed by the mainstream media. There are serious problems with some of the agendas behind the religion – and the science itself is anything but settled.

But more important, no one is talking about the non-environmental agendas of Kyoto, and how those other agendas are impacting the impartiality and validity of the science and many scientists.

Again, I am not saying that the burning of oil-derived products is not seriously harming our environment in many ways. Any pilot will tell you that there is a permanent brown haze over much of North America and it is getting worse. There are times in New York City and London when you can hardly breathe because of pollution. Blow your nose in Beijing on most days and it comes out black.

But as we search for solutions to the world’s problems and consider how we should live together on this planet, we must not allow ourselves to be blinded to the fact that powerful entities are relying upon global warming and other issues in the public eye to further their economic, social and political agendas. They have a need for the concept of “global warming is caused by humans” to be true or at least publicly accepted – and they don’t really care whether the science is accurate or not.

The unquestioning public acceptance of “global warming is caused by humans” allows for the implementation of widespread societal changes without their proponents having to be up front about their motives, or having their ideas critically examined by the populace.

How many of the societal changes being proposed to “solve” global warming are really only tagging along for the ride on this popular cause?

That’s all for now. My next article will be about two airplanes that were trapped in glacial ice for hundreds of years – and if that sounds absurd, let me put it this way…

Not so long ago, scientists said that glacial ice in various locations was a thousand years old. They even took core samples and analyzed them to show all kinds of fancy theories about climate and volcanic activities way in the past.

Then out of that “thousand-year-old” ice popped some crashed airplanes that had been missing for sixty years.

And that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth.

Original article by Robert – edited by Marcus

Further Reading

The Global Warming Petition Project – Home Page

Harvard University Gazette – Global Warming Not So Hot

MIT Technology Review – Medieval Global Warming

London Telegraph – Medieval Era Warmer Than Today

69 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Energy, Environment, History, Science

69 responses to “31,000 American Scientists, 9,000 PhDs Say “No Convincing Scientific Evidence” For Man-Made Global Warming

  1. peltdownman

    Unfortunately for Mr Teller, the father of WMD’s, flooding the world’s atmosphere with carbon dioxide will not do plants and trees much good when they are being cut down and burned at unprecedented rates. Too much carbon dioxide, and nowhere for it to go.

  2. yatinkitesasy

    Robert
    At last someone has brought up this subject, which is a personal pet subject of mine. I`m tired about hearing the term “global Warming”, and how we must do things to “reduce our carbon footprint”..furthermore, its the hook that Governmental agencies and non governmental agencies use to justify huge budgets and expenses, for something as futile as “fighting the war on Global Warming”.If anyone is interested in discovering the Truth about Global Warming…the scientific Truth, that is, I refer to a web page from The Science and Public Policy Institute, intitled “35 Inconvenient Truths..the errors in Al Gores Movie”.http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

    There are also many links for volumes of Scientific information , Co2 Science papers,etc.
    Its amazing that Al Gore not only won an Oscar for his movie, but a Nobel Peace prize for his “work” on Global Warming, when there are many distortions and outright lies in his movie which has been viewed by millions of people, and the contents accepted as true scientific data. As a result, millions, if not billions of taxpayers` money is being spent on countless meetings (last one in Bali) and projects that will have absolutely zero influence on the climate.
    In small places like Barbados, energy and funds would be better spent ensuring adequate clean drinking water,providing excellent health care, and doing something about our big garbage disposal problem. These are real environmental issues we CAN do something about.
    The Weather?

    The fact is , there is no “consensus among climate scientists ” that mankind, and Co2 emissions are causing Climate Change.The Debate is not over.
    The Science and Public Policy website provides convincing scientific arguments and Commentaries that “nature, not Human activity, rules the Climate”

  3. peltdownman

    How many of those 31,000 American scientists are being paid by companies that pollute the atmosphere?

  4. peltdownman

    Or receiving grants from them.

  5. Earth to environmentalists: Chill!

    By Jonah Goldberg | Wednesday, May 21, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Op-Ed
    I admit it: I’m no environmentalist. But I like to think I’m something of a conservationist.

    The two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.

    At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

    I heard Gore on NPR the other day. He was asked what he made of pastor Joseph Hagee’s absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans’ sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man’s energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men were not so different. If only canoodling residents of the Big Easy had adhered to “The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex.”

    Environmentalists are keen to insist that their movement is a secular one. But using the word “secular” no more makes you secular than using the word “Christian” automatically means you behave like a Christian. Pioneering green lawyer Joseph Sax, for example, describes environmentalists as “secular prophets, preaching a message of secular salvation.” Gore too has often been dubbed a “prophet.”

    It often seems that displaying faith in the green cause is more important than advancing the green cause. The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of the 2007 book “Cool It!”

    Yet about 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, starting right now, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them in Canada. What’s cheaper, trillions to trim carbon emissions or paying off the Canadians to stop killing polar bears?

    Plastic grocery bags are being banned all over the place, even though they require less energy to make or recycle than paper ones. The whole country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.

    Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element to it as well, but that element stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism.

    In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are “green” in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it’s time to save the environment from the environmentalists.

    Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1095376

  6. South

    That’s the ticket, peltdownman! You have the technique down to a science…

    When you don’t want to debate the actual science or have anybody else critically examine global warming, attack the reputations, integrity and motivations of scientists who refuse to believe in the righteousness of the cause!

  7. If we would all just stop exhaling, CO2 emissions would be cut down drastically…

  8. Rohan

    BPF, you guys are great when it comes to exposing fraud and media ineptitude in Barbados, but whenever you stray into the realms of science I can’t help but wonder if you’re trying to be funny.

    Now this isn’t a debate against the claim you’re trying to make BFP, just that the entire petition you are holding up has been exposed for it’s outright fraud and deception a long time ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

    So I’m guessing you didn’t know this, (which is slightly less damning) or you knew this information was out there and presented one side of it. Anyhow, here’s what you didn’t tell your readers about the petition:

    1) Six right-wing republican wingnuts got together and started a website and petition and sent it out in a Mass email to “scientists”.

    2) The petition was DECEPTIVE. It was accompanied by an article purporting to De-bunk global warming that was designed to look as though it had been published in the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS had to issue a public statement.

    “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”

    3) Several scientist including a few reputable scientists signed. Note: THE VAST MAJORITY were NOT climate change scientist (hence your cool signature at the top from a scientist who worked on weapons). It would be like mailing a petition on brain aneurisms to 10 doctors but 7 of them are dentists! Actually (and I’m not making this up) the list did include many dentists and nutritionists and the only requirement for signing was a BACHELORS degree in A science.

    4) The screening process was so lax that the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The distribution of petitions was so uncontrolled that those receiving the petition could check a line that said “send more petition cards for me to distribute!”

    5) For an honest petition, see the one from the Union of Concerned scientists. Its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. (You can bet there are no folks with just bachelor’s degrees on the list).

    Come on guys, you can do a bit better than this.

  9. BGR

    William Gray the hurricane expert and old school scientist recently had funding withdrew from his research all because of his continuing stance that global warming is not man-made.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html

    However since the news broke the university “backtrack” on its positon and for now he still have a job whilst maintaining his position.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353266,00.html

    Vested interests are going after these guys [and will continue to do so] who can still sway the population against this concocted and misguided position.

    Already we are seeing the results.

    Land taken out of agriculture that is suppose to feed millions diverted to produce ethanol for fuel efficient cars to combat global warming.
    Not surprisingly there will be no let up.

    The research is out there that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than fossil fuels but of course such information would not be so readily available from mainstream media.

    The environmentalists are between a rock and a hard place. The first set of people to swallow the lie, I wonder what they are thinking now.

    Europe Switching Back To Coal
    http://bimchat.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/europeans-switching-back-to-coal/

    Bajan Global Report
    http://www.bimchat.wordpress.com

  10. Straight talk

    peltdownman

    “How many of those 31,000 American scientists are being paid by companies that pollute the atmosphere?…….Or receiving grants from them.”

    All of them I imagine. We are all polluters.

    But I suspect this was not the answer you were looking for, was it?

    You wanted to discredit scientists by insinuating they had a reward driven agenda, and I agree with you, some do … collectively they are known as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    A little research on your part would have uncovered this lucrative charade.

    From the very beginning, the IPCC was a
    political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their
    governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position.

    The IPCC’s key personnel and lead authors were all activists prior to being appointed by their governments, and its Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) have been subject to approval by member governments of the UN. The scientists involved with the IPCC are almost all supported by government contracts, which pay not only for their research but for their IPCC activities.
    Most travel to and hotel accommodations at exotic
    locations for the drafting authors is paid with
    government funds.
    So the fact is, that it was an activist enterprise from the very beginning. Its agenda was to justify control of the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
    Consequently, its scientific reports have focused solely on evidence that might point toward human-induced climate change.

    In particular, a small group of activists write the all-important Summary for Policymakers (SPM) after biased editing of contributing researchers.

    They omit evidence contrary to their raison d’etre
    and include spurious and dubious graphs and summaries to support their case.

    Welcome to megabuck science advocating terrabuck solutions to non-problems.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fallacy, and, unless it is exposed, we will waste countless billions on totally ineffective mitigation policies while the world’s poor starve.

    A

  11. reality check

    I understand when he Vikings came over to the New World the ocean had much less ice and that climate change involves many many factors.

    Nevertheless, four facts are unassailable

    1) fossil fuels are finite and declining.

    2) Fossil fuels are essentially dirty and polluting.

    3) Demand has been outstripping supply for some time now and governments have failed to implement long term energy strategies to remove our dependence of fossil fuels.

    4) the increase and release of Co2 into the atmosphere in relation to the past 10,000 years has been staggering in the last decade.

    http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_2007_0521a.html

    There are hundreds of other studies one can google that show the incredible acceleration of co2 into our atmosphere.

    Moving quickly and decisively away from the use of fossil fuels may mark whether or not mankind as we know it, will survive.

    Recycled Nuclear material as is done in France, wind, solar and other similar forms of renewable resources combined with active recycling, conservation, electric and hybrid cars, fuel cells etc are essential for our long term economic survival which will also could affect
    our very existence in terms of health, weather, droughts etc.

    In England in the 16th century people use to throw their sewage in the streets unaware that this kind of behaviour caused disease and plagues to occur.

    Science finally caught up to the naysayers and clearly demonstrated that there was a cause and effect to peoples actions and their health.

    Toilet training is a matter of education and cleanliness.

    Will our governments of the day lead us in the long term solutions or will economic crises created by supply and demand realities and weather catastrophes have to be the operating influences.

  12. Anonymous

    South

    When you don’t want to debate the actual science or have anybody else critically examine global warming, attack the reputations, integrity and motivations of scientists who refuse to believe in the righteousness of the cause!
    __________________________________

    My submission was framed as a question. You doth protest too much, South.

  13. A video with regards to this subject worth watching is at:

    As “reality check” points out above, one immutable fact is that fossil fuels are constrained — there is only so much oil we humans will be able to pull out of the ground.

    (Please remember that this oil is really nothing but sequestered carbon — living organisms pulled this out of the environment over several million years. Does it really make sense to put all this back into the system in the time span of only a few hundred?)

    Therefore, it seems obvious that we *must* find alternatives. It doesn’t matter if our burning buried carbon as fuel is contributing to global warming or not. This current situation is not sustainable. It doesn’t, as is empirically clear, scale.

    Personally, I’m *thrilled* that the price of oil is as high as it is (having doubled in the last year alone), and is continuing to climb. This simply means that renewable energy solutions which were previously not economical are suddenly finding that their “curves have crossed”.

    We in the Caribbean receive more sunlight than most of the developed world. We use this to sell tourism (Sun, Sand, Surf), but we can also leverage on this to power our industries. Photovoltaic, wind, wave — all the same thing, at the end of the day — all have the solar energy as the root input.

    One can (and many have) state that there’s no *proof* what we humans are causing climate change. And this is true — being a chaotic system, it’s difficult to prove anything based on the very small sample set we have.

    But as stated above, this doesn’t matter any more. Renewable are suddenly economical, and unlike traditional carbon-based fuels, are sustainable.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Barbados actually found rich oil reserves in our territorial waters, and were able to sell every barrel extracted to others in exchange for currency?

    (Now, if only BL&P had a tariff for customer generated power fed back into the grid, we’d actually start to see people invest in alternative power…)

  14. Keith Headley

    I love science.

    However, hypocrisy is often masked as science.

    These same scientists said:

    a) There is no global warming; it is a lie. Studies prove it.

    b) Global warming may be good for the planet.

    c) Global warming has nothing to do with climate change.

    All of these were backed up by exhaustive research. If you don’t remember, I do. There was so much research to back it up I was ALMOST convinced those three times. But my gut said different.

    Now you say

    d) Global warming may not be caused by human activity.

    Even if it were true I don’t believe you because of a) to c). These SAME scientists said a) to c).

    If some totally different ones said the same thing I MIGHT believe them . . .

    Might.

  15. Rohan

    I posted a comment hours ago and I’m not seeing it.

  16. Rohan

    Okay, sorry for the double post bfp, please delete them when you guys get a chance. I changed the link to see if it would go through. I’m not sure what the problem is with my comment not posting in hours. This has never happened before.

  17. Bajanboy

    Chris:

    The only way domestically generated (at homes or businesses) photo voltaic or wind energy in Barbados is going to develop is by the adoption of net metering by the BL&P. Net metering allows surplus energy to be fed back into the grid during periods of excess generation, which will cause the meter to spin backwards. During periods when consumption exceeds production, the meter will spin forwards. A consumer will thus only be billed for net consumption.

  18. Rohan

    okay I give up.

  19. Bajanboy.

    That was exactly the point of my last paragraph… There has been talk of “allowing to consumer to run the meter backwards”, but to the best of my knowledge there has not yet been a published tariff (read: what BL&P will have to pay the consumer per kw/h, as it is usually less than what the consumer pays to the utility).

    Please note that the traditional argument of the monopoly producer being forced to allow a consumer with their own generating ability to feed back into the grid is that the monopoly will then have to deal with unpredictable external inputs. This, as with most arguments used by monopolies protecting their business, is a straw man.

    It is worth noting that in T&T solar is not even widely used for hot water. Why? T&T being an indigenous producer of fossil fuels means that solar hot water is not economical (currently). Again, [economic] curves crossing.

    It is perhaps also worth noting that until recently there was a heavy import duty on photovoltaics here in Barbados. Protectionism doesn’t scale.

  20. Anyone interested in serious, large-scale solar generation system should check out the “Solar Power Tower”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower

    This system uses molten salt as the transfer material. This can be stored in underground tanks to allow continued generation during cloudy periods, and over night.

    Imagine if BL&P invested in this, rather than the planned traditional diesel generation plant in St. Lucy?

    We Bajans always talk about needing to invest in technology. Here’s an example where we could literally put our money where our mouths were, and become leaders in the region.

  21. pressed

    >31,000 American Scientists, 9,000 PhDs

    that’s interesting. here’s some other interesting facts:

    1. There is a consensus in the climate science community that anthropogenic global warming is real.
    [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf]

    2. You cited an article in a University newspaper. How is the headline of a University newspaper’s article more convincing to you than the entire climate science community?

    3. Did you even read that article? He talks about the Medieval warm period, a well-known but not well-understand time. It has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.

    4. Are you being honest with yourself by taking “31,000 scientists” seriously? Being a food “scientist” does not make one an authority on climate any more than being a nurse.

    I come to BFP expecting a reasoned, non-sensational analysis of world events, not false statistics and straw man arguments – “a group of scientists were wrong about ice once and admitted it”, therefore global warming is false? Be serious. Science is a method, not a religion.

  22. Straight talk

    pressed:

    Please tell us the one indisputable fact which convinces you there is such a phenomenon as anthropogenic global warming, or is it just an opinion you have formed.

  23. Rohan

    Pressed, how right you are. The BFP folks are great most of the time, but this is the second time in a few weeks that I’ve seen their ideology take over common sense with discussions of science.

    The petition they hold up here has already been pointed out as DECEPTIVE and fraudulent. Robert either was not aware of this, or he simply decided to ignore it. (I’ll have to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you guys have to admit that this is some of your shoddier set of work).

    . Anyhow, here’s what you didn’t tell your readers about the petition:

    1) Six right-wing republican wingnuts got together and started a website and created this petition and sent it out in a Mass email to “scientists”.

    2) True to Republican form, the petition was DECEPTIVE. It was accompanied by an article debunking global warming that was designed to look as though it had been published in the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS had to issue a public statement.

    “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”

    3) Several scientist including a few reputable scientists signed. Note: THE VAST MAJORITY were NOT climate change scientist (hence your cool signature at the top from a scientist who worked on weapons). It would be like mailing a petition on brain aneurisms to 10 doctors but 7 of them are dentists! Actually (and I’m not making this up) the list did include many dentists and nutritionists and the only requirement for signing was a BACHELORS degree in A science.

    4) The screening process was so weak that the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The distribution of petitions was so uncontrolled that those receiving the petition could check a line that said “send more petition cards for me to distribute!”

    Click Robert’s link above to see it.

    5) For an honest petition, (and yes, one that takes the opposite position) see the one from the Union of Concerned scientists. Its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. (You can bet there are no folks with just bachelor’s degrees in nutrition on the list).

    Anyhow, there’s even a wiki on the whole scandalous affair:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

  24. Rohan

    Read this link on the petition. I’ve been trying to post all day but my posts are awaiting moderation. Anyhow, the petition has already been destroyed as DECEPTIVE and a fraud.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

    Read this link on the petition. I’ve been trying to post all day but my posts are awaiting moderation. Anyhow, the petition has already been destroyed as DECEPTIVE and a fraud.

  25. Rohan

    The Deception: The petition included an article that was formatted and designed to look like it had been published in the reputable National Academy of sciences journal.

    The resemblance was so close that the NAS had to issue a public statement.

    “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”

    So basically they included “evidence” disguised to look like it was peer reviewed to get the scientists to sign the petition and BFP bought it hook, line, and sinker without an iota of research.

  26. Rohan

    The bait and switch: The vast majority of the scientist were not climate scientist. It would be like mailing a petition on brain aneurisms to 10 doctors but 7 of them are dentists! Actually (and I’m not making this up) the list did include many dentists and nutritionists and the only requirement for signing was a BACHELORS degree in A science. Any science.

    The screening process was so lax that the list also included a number of names added by environmentalists, including Michael J. Fox. The distribution of petitions was so uncontrolled that those receiving the petition could check a line that said “send more petition cards for me to distribute!”

    Click Roberts link above to see it.

    For an honest petition, see the one from the Union of Concerned scientists. Its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. (You can bet there are no folks with bachelor’s degrees in nutrition on the list).

  27. Rohan

    BPF please ignore my comments waiting for moderation. I’ve been trying to post all day and only just saw your article on comment moderation (I see it’s largely automated). Anyhow, please delete them.

    I think I got my point across that the petition you highlighted here is a JOKE! You guys can do a lot better than this.

  28. Amused

    The BFP claim :

    “Believing that global warming is caused by human activity and can therefore be controlled has become a matter of religion. No dissent is allowed, and as many scientists know – scientific data that does not support the global warming religion is excluded from the record and public discussion.”

    The reality (from wikipedia) :

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations” via the greenhouse effect.

    These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

    While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions.

  29. Straight talk

    Amused:
    “Very likely” is not science, but it will very likely lead to expensively futile government “solutions” to a debatable problem.

  30. Straight talk

    BFP:

    Is anyone at all moderating today?

    If we have to wait 12 hours for you to check comments, this important thread will be stymied before it takes off.

    ***************

    BFP says,

    Hello,

    We sincerely apologise that you were not provided with the timely service that you demand. There was no comment moderator at BFP from about 7am until 7pm.

    george is sick. Marcus was working. Clive was working. Shona was running around with the little one. Robert is working in the USA and Auntie Moses can barely get past the XP password without help so we dare not turn her loose at the admin panel.

    We invite you once more to kindly read the tab at the top about comment moderation.

    Do it now, please.

  31. Amused

    “very likely” is science. there are no certainties in science.

    IPCC is a scientific body

  32. Straight talk

    IPCC is a group of self-serving’ agenda driven government mouthpieces.

    Prove me wrong, cite their independent credentials.

    Release my early morning comment BFP, let’s debate this dangerous cabal.

  33. Straight talk

    Pressed & Amused:

    All gone quiet, I’m waiting…..with facts.

  34. This is a resubmission…

    Anyone interested in serious, industrial scale solar power solutions should check out the Solar Power Tower.

    To avoid automatic moderation, I shall not provide an URL. Do a Google for the above “SPT” phrase. Drill down on the Wikipedia article.

    We Bajans always talk about needing to invest in technology. Well, here’s a perfect opportunity for us to do just that.

    Imagine if BL&P were to invest in this, rather than the planned diesel burning power generation plant in St. Lucy. We could put our money where our mouths are, and become leaders in the region.

    Anyone want to open a book on how likely that is? (Sorry, that was cynical… Or perhaps, heuristic?)

  35. Straight talk

    I’ve read and understood your moderation policy, BFP.

    You should publish a sidebar of potentially controversial triggers that regular commentators must avoid, and we would.

    WordPress should provide that list.

    How else can one post a perfectly anodyne comment to avoid moderation, and perversion of the thread?

  36. Straight talk

    Amused:

    Don’t be shy.

    From (from wikipedia) reality:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations”

    Which increases in observed globally averaged temperatures are you quoting from.

    Say for the last ten years, give us the data.

  37. Straight talk

    Pressed:

    “I come to BFP expecting a reasoned, non-sensational analysis of world events, not false statistics and straw man arguments”

    You come to BFP with nothing , man. Zilch.

    I am waiting for you to post reasoned, non-sensational proof of anthropogenic global warming.

    Do it soon, or admit you are a media dupe.

  38. Straight talk

    As I thought, Robert, prick their self-righteous bubble and there is no substance to the argument.

  39. Amused

    “I am waiting for you to post reasoned, non-sensational proof of anthropogenic global warming.”

    wait for ever, then because there is no such thing as proof in science (only in maths)

    The IPCC essentially states most (but not all) the increase in global temperatures is likely man made. Likely that is, they are not certain.

    they also claim there is a consensus on this viewpoint (and such was only very recently reached)

    The point of my post was to refute BFP’s claims that absolute positions were taken and dissent not allowed. Those claims are nonsense and that was the point of my post. A point completely lost on you as you began to rant on the IPCC and you desire for “proof”. Rant on as you like.

    Take the report of the IPCC as you will. You and your Government are free to ignore or take steps to reduce greenhouse gases.

    Your call.

  40. politically incorrect

    Global warming is a total farce.

    Time has a great way of revealing lies.

  41. Straight talk

    Absolutely correct, Amused.

    If it was my call to how my tax dollars are spent, and on the balance of evidence, I say, give not one cent to the anthropogenecists, let them work for a living like normal people.

    We are a fear driven society, and I will always attempt to protect us from first world
    *scientific” scams designed to retrograde us to slaves or peons.

    I repeat give me one shred of evidence that there is anthropogenic global warming and I will recant.

  42. Amused

    “I repeat give me one shred of evidence that there is anthropogenic global warming and I will recant.”

    loads of evidence for man made warming

    how much and what the consequences are – now that is the big debate

    you sure the scientists are the scammers? or the politicians who have an agenda to push or an ego to boost (e.g al gore)

  43. Straight talk

    yatinkitesasy:

    Sorry I missed your earlier comment, but I fully agree, respect.

    Let’s confront these rumour mongers and say prove your stuff or get out of my pocket.

  44. Straight talk

    Amused:

    Unfortunately I missed the evidence you were bringing to prove anthropogenic global warming.

    Did I miss a comment?
    or are you stuck?

  45. Straight talk

    Ah well, another one bites the dust.

    Be very careful, all my people, we are being manipulated, sometimes from within by people who know not what they do.

    Look at the big picture, much bigger than the TV.

  46. Dear Straight talk

    I see you subscribe to the maxim of “proof by excessive arm waving”. Closely rated to the methodology of “proof by large corporate sponsorship.”

    I do find it amusing that if we followed your counsel, we’d all keep consuming as we have in the past, since if we didn’t we’d be guilty of “being kept down”. Interesting, then, that the huge increases in oil prices are being driven by speculators from afar.

    Sure — let’s keep consuming as we have in the past. That will work. For a while…

    And then?

  47. Amused

    “Unfortunately I missed the evidence you were bringing to prove anthropogenic global warming.”

    no you missed the point

    there is no “proof” in science

    I have referred you to the IPCC report, a good starting point for reading the evidence (and the conclusions drawn)

    you choose to ignore the reference and keep asking where is the evidence

    well keep asking, it is amusing

  48. Amused

    “Look at the big picture, much bigger than the TV”

    yes but also look at the details and you will see the issue is vastly more complex than the headlines in the media or the scare tactics by the politicians or the melodrama by the egotists

  49. Straight talk

    CH:

    You have seriously misinterpreted all my previous comments. I suggest you re-read as your interpretation is diametrically opposed to my stated thoughts.

    I believe oil is undervalued, and until we respect its true worth we will continue to be shocked by the market’s evaluation.
    IMHO at today’s dollar, I would say $350 per barrel, and even that is cheap for the work we get out of it.

    Amusing:

    It is no laughing matter to me that you are still trumpeting the discredited assumptions of a poodle UN entity.

    Where is the evidence? The hockey stick graph?

    Come back to me when you have a serious point to make.

    Oh. BTW tell me all about the”details”.

    You’re on my turf now and your responses have got to be good to make me change my mind.

    Can you do it?

    We shall see.

  50. Straight talk

    Amused;

    So, as there is no proof in science ( a ridiculous assumption from the outset ) you guide me to the latest IPCC report.

    What for?

    Where is your proof?

    These well connected gentlemen have produced a report but what are you asking me to look at?

    I repeat encore show me the absolute proof.

    IPCC doesn’t cut it for me, but if there’s some scintilla of hard evidence in that report please let us all on this blog be enlightened.

    Quite frankly, for an organisation whose mandate is to correlate man with catastrophe, they have failed miserably.

    Arctic Ice cover.
    Tropospheric temperature
    10 year mean surface temperatures.

    Explain these anomalies to your theory and I am halfway to believing the IPCC drivel, failure to do so will result in you losing the argument.

    Give us some facts, not propaganda,

  51. Amused

    “So, as there is no proof in science ( a ridiculous assumption from the outset ) ”

    clearly you dont understand science

    no wonder you dont understand the IPCC report

  52. Amused

    “IPCC doesn’t cut it for me, ”

    Hey, no problem.

    “but if there’s some scintilla of hard evidence in that report please let us all on this blog be enlightened.”

    since you asked, here is the link to the 4 “climate 2007” reports released last year by the IPCC

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

  53. Amused

    bottom line, the IPCC says that most (but not all) of the observed global warming is likely man made.

    you can take that as you like.

    you can :

    1) do nothing or,

    2) help reduce emissions

    if the man made warming effect is negligible all that will result is that we will be a little more energy efficient

    if the man made warming is real, we might just reduce any negative impact.

    Take the research as you like.

    Your call.

  54. Rumplestilskin

    What is concerning is that the artic ice is melting at a much faster rate than originally projected.

    This must have serious impact for the ecology both in the arctic and terms of sea temperature overall.

    Additionally, this indicates that the Greenland cap, the one that will affect sea levels when it melts, will probably melt sooner than expected also.

    Original projections for melting of the artic ice was somthing like 2080, now brought forward to 2030, but even now that may be suspect and it may be sooner.

    The ecology, for whatever reason, will change quickly in the next few years and we need to change with it.

    Peace

  55. Rumplestilskin

    By the way, to clarify, artic ice melt will not affect the seas levels, melting of the Greenland Ice Cap will.

  56. Straight talk

    Rumple:
    A few proven facts should be brought to the table before we get carried away with scary rumours.

    Greenland ice grows 2in a year.
    The Greenland ice sheet survived each of the previous three interglacial periods, each of which was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present.
    It survived atmospheric CO2 concentrations of up to 1000 ppmv (compared with today’s
    400 ppmv).
    It last melted 850,000 years ago, when humankind did not exist and could not have caused the melting.

    There is a close correlation between variations in solar activity and temperature anomalies in Greenland, but there is no correlation between variations in CO2 concentration and temperature changes in Greenland.

    Even the IPCC (2001) says that to melt even half the Greenland ice sheet would require temperature to rise by 5.5 degrees C and remain that high for several thousand years.

  57. Straight talk

    Amused:

    No I don’t understand “science” the way it is being manipulated by the IPCC. It defies logic.

    I have already researched and have made my call.

    I believe anthropogenic global warming is a myth.

    A whole new industry is being built around this myth, but I am not buying into it.

    I am cutting back on energy usage, not because of AGW, but because it is an expensive scarce resource, and that is another story, possibly intimately related to the current AGW fad.

  58. Real Ting

    readers should take a look at Michael Chrichton’s novel ” State of Fear” . Its a work of fiction but it is centered around ACTUAL reports and statistics which are printed in the novel along with references to published date, magazine or journal published in or online availability. in the end it surmises that global warming is an environmental myth promulgated to generate and sustain a billion dollar movement.

    One of the central points raised was that records of temperature and climate change were only kept for the last 150 to 175 years and therefore scientists cannot say that the trend of higher temperatures is not part of a greater climatic fluctuation over a period of years. Take the el nino phenomenon ; always there but the cycle, duration and intensity was not defined at first because there was nothing to compare it to. Temperatures in the middle ages and earlier time periods can ONLY estimated and NO scientist can say how today relates to 400 or 600 or 800 years ago. the problem with science like this is that scientists take a position, a reasoned but empirically unsubstantiated position (eg about previous temperature levels and trends) and then use that position as the basis for a theory which they promulgate as an unarguable fact.

    Always beware of people with agendas.

    there are so manypeople in this world that would be ordinary if not for the causes that bring them prominence and in the case of scientists justify their work direction and make funds available.

    can you imagine how many government and university grants would dry up if global warming was a myth?

  59. Disappointed in BFP

    I don’t believe BFP published this crap! They didn’t even research it. Very very disappointed considering I like BFP.

    ***************************

    BFP says,

    We did our research and invite you to consider some of what we found in greater depth than simply agreeing with some of the spontaneous comments from the closed-minded.

    You might want to have a look at the website of the petition project and specifically their FAQ pages. There are thousands of reputable, intelligent scientists with relevant and impressive credentials who believe that the impact of humans upon global warming is negligible or non-existent compared to naturally-occurring and uncontrollable factors.

    Our main points in writing this article are that the science is anything but settled and that many agendas that have nothing to do with the environment are jumping onto the global warming bandwagon.

  60. Disappointed in BFP

    I looked at all the links before I posted previosuly. As far as I can tell the source of your article is false and misleading. However, I do agree that science is anything but settled and know that some things they do preach as fact when it is not. Furthermore, when “consensus” of scientists disagree you need to ask why. Who benefits from each position? What is the source of the disagreement? It’ll mostly surely come down to money. Others might say, pertaining certain science claims, that the reason is to duped the world into anti-Christian beliefs. Whatever it is, there is a source reason and someone is paying. In anything that may be true bad can come from it so to speak. By that I mean people can take advantage of the truth for their own agendas – such as you’re trying to say. Come on, this is real life. Of course that will happen whether global warming is true or not. Because that is happening doesn’t mean global warming is not true. I don’t believe the source for your article nor your article made the point you’re claiming. It felt more like a position that you’re taken since the article was more like a copy with comments.

  61. Michael Searcy

    OISM’s list of skeptics contains many deficiencies, the least of which is the attachment of “scientist” to the lower common denominator of undergraduate degree recipients. If Lawrence Solomon and the National Post are to be believed, the latest incarnation of the survey is brand new. “We decided to do the survey again,” said Arthur Robinson, one of the petition’s creators. Dismissing that the petition is not a survey (Should it be assumed that those on the distribution list who did not sign support AGW?), one wonders how a man who died in 2003 made the new list (Yes, he’s still on it.).

    And while Robinson states that science should not be done by polls (Once again, his petition is not a poll.), his petition aside, the list fails on multiple fronts even within that context.

    http://scentofpine.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/oism31k/

  62. theNickster

    Mankind is affecting the atmosphere just not in the way you think. I haven’t seen anyone mention the high atmosphere nuclear detonations (at least a dozen of those tests were done in the times leading up to Hiroshima and after) all causing major effects to the chemical make up of the atmosphere (it takes years to recover from just one).
    When you see a diagram of how the atmosphere is structured you start to realize there are parts up there that can’t be reached conventionally by most “CFCs”. That brown haze that can be seen sometimes is nothing a minor rainstorm can’t clear up.
    The warming issue is a smoke screen to a more serious issue, the altering of “air rivers” (you will have to do some research folks), places that once got rain no longer get it and places that do are destroyed by the flooding (this is just one of the issues with mucking about up there).

    Also the destruction of coral reefs in addition to deforestation will keep the CO2 levels up a bit more, (plants release CO2 at night.)

    Want to fix the environment? fix humanity first. Don’t expect our government to support initiatives that go against their masters’ wishes, don’t expect BL&P to support something that causes them to spend money.

    Want to do something useful? start solar communities, take whole neighborhoods off the grid. Everyone has a rooftop, pool together your resources and create larger surface areas for panels. If we lose the dog eat dog attitude it could actually work.

  63. yatinkiteasy

    To Michael,Rumple,Amused,Rohan and other BFP readers.

    Want to have some fun and perhaps learn something about “Global Warming”..? Take the test! Results may surprise you…

    http:/www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Q1.html

    Answers are backed up by interesting scientific documents and references.

  64. yatinkiteasy

    Forgot to enter my BFP name in above submission.

    To Michael,Rumple,Amused,Rohan and other BFP readers.

    Want to have some fun and perhaps learn something about “Global Warming”..? Take the test! Results may surprise you…

    http:/www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Q1.html

    Answers are backed up by interesting scientific documents and references.

  65. yatinkiteasy

    Since some have questioned the list of 31,000 scientists, its interesting to discover exactly who is on the list of scientists that make Global Warming a man made crisis..

    President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these “scientists” know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.
    Book Ref:
    “Global Warming Treaty is All Pain, No Gain” — Malcom Wallop

  66. yatinkiteasy

    There was an interesting video on U tube, which has been taken down (powers that be) that exposes some of Al Gores lies in his movie “An inconvenient Truth”.

    Can still be seen here, however.

  67. pressed

    man straight talk, you keep pushing until you get a response eh?

    i wasn’t around because my comment-moderation patience wore out. decided to come back today and see where the discussion went. I’m not going to try and respond to all your questions directly at this point, it would simply be too long and boring for anyone but you to read.

    i’m surprised that BFP is sticking by their statement. BFP, can you show us some better evidence? I read your citations, and as I mentioned above they are either irrelevant or sources i cannot trust.

    you alluded to the “closed-minded” who disagree with you, but my mind is open in disagreement. I’m not a climate change scientist, but I am “a scientist”, and my opinion on global warming is influenced largely by facts, not conclusions. (I dont trust those sources because I see no facts.) Here are some facts that affect my opinion:

    1. The arctic permafrost is melting. The “treeline” has been moving north over the past couple of decades at an alarming rate. This area has been frozen for thousands of yers.

    2. The weather in Northern Canada has changed so drastically that traditional Inuit knowledge has become unreliable, the elders who used to know when a storm was coming now find weather mostly unpredictable.

    3. The ice sheets of Antarctica have been significantly reduced over the last couple of decades. Again, long-frozen ice has started to melt.

    4. Most of the changes in composition of our atmosphere lead directly to increased temperature. All except one. Increased aerosol concentrations may counteract that warming 100%, or (equally likely) may double it to 200%, or may go half-and-half and have no effect. If they counteract the warming, *there will still be significant climate changes in the near future.*

    5. Finally, and I wish I had a graph right now, people tend to say “the earth has been warm in the past, so don’t worry too much about it now.” The earth HAS been this warm in the past, and warmer. BUT these changes were over thousands of years. We’ve made them over 150. So if we carry on at this rate, we will far exceed the past records.

    I don’t have online sources for many of these facts (which I hope you will see as a good thing…) but here is one book that’s online http://www-as.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/ My claim about 100%/200%/50-50 is in a hard-to-see graph here http://www-as.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-33.gif

  68. Kid Charlemagne

    Can anyone provide evidence that massive amounts of CO2 or other greenhouse gases do anything GOOD for our climate? (And no the amount of rainforest we have left cannot handle the amount of CO2 we are producing, so don’t say it helps the trees).