Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists

[RAnderson]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The only scam bigger than Global Warming is the Federal Reserve Bank! Contact your congressman and tell them if they want another term, they had better vote against Global Warming legislation![/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Ron Paul[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Ron Paul[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse 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 effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The proposed agreement we 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change. [/FONT]

 

[rhino]

Bravo!

 

[Crimson]

I like, thanks. Will be doing my part with this.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

These "petition" things have been around for a long time...

There's the petition of 50k scientists who "believe" in MMGW, then there are 30k signature petitions from scientists who do not believe in MMGW.

My question about ANY of these petitions is: What constitutes a "scientist", and from what science disciplines must one be a part of in order for it to really constitute a valid and informed opinion?

For instance, if you get 1000 research-based physicians to sign a petition... Yes, I'd agree that they're scientists. But they're not trained, nor involved in any kind of "climatology", or even basic meteorology for that matter.

What about microbiologists? Same deal: Yes, they're scientists, but would their vote "count" due to their profession?

Or what about the epidemiologists who are tracking the H1N1 virus?

Most of these petitions, you might as well let car salesmen and hardware store employees sign them. (NOT a disparagement against these folks)

As for me? I graduated with a BS in Secondary Education; where I concentrated on earth/space science with biology as a supporting role. I've had several geology courses, courses in meteorology, climatology, botany, physics, astronomy, human anatomy/physiology, zoology, and microbiology. In addition, my science-related work history has been in geotechnical geology (sub-surface soil surveys, from 5 to 100 feet down, to take soil samples for civil engineering projects like bridge, culvert, and roadway repair/replacement), as a general "staff scientist" for an environmental engineering firm where most of my duties involved groundwater mapping and sampling for contamination mapping/remediation at gas stations and dry cleaners, and now I do quality control for a Government Agency that deals with air pollution monitoring.

I say the above NOT to pat myself on the back, but to explain that I have a heavily technical and scientific background. Probably enough that I could easily allow myself to be considered a "scientist". But I still wouldn't feel comfortable signing a petition like the one mentioned. Granted, I do think that I know a heck of a lot more about the "environment" than the average bear, but that doesn't qualify me to be a "climate scientist".

So there!

-J-

 

[rhino]

I don't think area of speciality should necessarily preclude anyone from weighing-in on this issue. Any trained scientist or engineer understands fundamental principles of scientific investigation, review, reporting, numeric modeling, etc. One does not need to be well versed in climatology or atmospheric science to:

1. Recognize fraud
2. Recognize lack of any semblence of scientific method
3. Recognize laughably bad attempts at computer modeling
3. Recognize so many contradictions that it would be difficult to count and mention them all
4. Recognize that if the premise is that increased levels of CO2 causes temperature increases, then if the levels are allegedly up and the temperatures have been dropping for the last eight years, someone has made in incorrect assumption
5. Recognize that discounting the primary factor in our global temps (i.e. the freakin' SUN) is such bad scientific method as to go beyond humorous and into deliberate intellectual dishonesty
6. Recognize that the concencentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature, which determines how much is dissolved in the oceans vs. how much is released from the oceans, and not the other way around (this is obvious if you overlay temperature date with CO2 level; the CO2 lags the temp and corresponds to it, so the causal relationship is obvious).
7. Recognize that the people at the top of pushing this debacle have a vested financial interest in getting the general public to believe it.

I have to go now, or I could continue.

For the record, some of my credentials are:

BS Mechanical Engineering - Rose-Hulman - 1987
National Science Foundation Fellowship - 1987
MS Mechanical Engineering - UC Berkeley - 1989 (concentration in thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fluid dynamics; combustion phenomena - "rocket scientist")
US EPA - Environmental Engineer and Superfund Project Manager (2 years)
Post baccalaureate studies in chemistry and biology at Wabash college (2 years)
Currently teach physics at community college

I recognize pseudo-scientific bullsh** when I see it.

 

[xamsx]

FRAUD.