http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?
The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.
Moreover, the current totals of 31,486 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.
2. Has the petition project helped to diminish the threat of energy and technology rationing?
The accomplishments of science and engineering have transformed the world. They have markedly increased the quality, quantity, and length of human life and have enabled human beings to make many improvements in the natural environment of the Earth.
Today, scientists are seeing the accomplishments of science demonized and one of the three most important molecular substances that make life possible - atmospheric carbon dioxide (the other two being oxygen and water) - denigrated as an atmospheric "pollutant" in a widely circulated movie. Scientists who have carefully examined the facts know that this movie contains numerous falsehoods. This and many other similar misguided propaganda efforts in the media, naturally repel men and women who know the truth. The search for truth is the essence of science. When science is misrepresented, scientists are naturally incensed.
There is, therefore, a rapidly growing backlash of opposition among American scientists to this egregious misuse of the reputation and procedures of science. The Petition Project is helping to demonstrate this opposition and, therefore, to reduce the chances of misguided political reductions in science-based technology.
3. Who organized the Petition Project?
The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and the signatures of its 31,486 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition.
...
http://www.petitionproject.org/GW_Petition.pdf
Thank you for your interest in signing this petition, which has now been signed by more than
30,000 American scientists. Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the
analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD
degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.
Please print the petition, fill out the credential section, and sign as indicated.
Please mail your signed petition to: Petition Project, P.O. Box 1925, La Jolla, CA 92038.
Best Regards,
Arthur B. Robinson, BS Caltech, PhD UCSD Noah E. Robinson, BS SOU, PhD Caltech
Professor of Chemistry Professor of Chemistry
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
artr@oism.org noahr@oism.org
Petition
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
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.
Please send more petition cards for me to distribute.
Please Sign Here
My academic degree is B.S. M.S. Ph.D. in the field of
I have specialized scientific experience in:
Name
Street
City, State, and Zip
Originally posted by zeeblebothttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?
The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC nt role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition.
...
Cool, so Robinson's trained in Biochemistry and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine specialises in "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging". Is this supposed to be relevant to climate change?
According to wikipedia this is what happened last time this guy ran a petition:
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[20]”
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[21]
”
In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“Scientific American took a random 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.[22]”
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]
The paper in question was published in the highly controversial journal "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons", the executive of whom is a member of the Oregon Institute!
As I follow the wikipedia links this just gets better and better, I haven't had a laugh on here this good in a while. The paper in question was published in a journal that isn't recognised by the Web of Science or PubMed (i.e. isn't major literature). But here's the punchline... this "journal" of yours has claimed thus far...
abortion causes preterm birth later in life, and thus birth defects such as cerebral palsy to future children born to women with a history of abortion
the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,
"humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,
that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,
HIV does not cause AIDS,
the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.
... all this proves is that it is possible to get more than 30,000 supposedly qualified signatories to something completely retarded.
Originally posted by mrstabbyRec'd
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Cool, so Robinson's trained in Biochemistry and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine specialises in "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging". Is this supposed to be relevant to climate change?
Accordi ...[text shortened]... dly qualified signatories to something completely retarded.[/b]
Originally posted by mrstabbywikipedia is not a useful source for global warming unless you've been Greenwashed and are happy with that.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Cool, so Robinson's trained in Biochemistry and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine specialises in "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging". Is this supposed to be relevant to climate change?
Accordi ...[text shortened]... dly qualified signatories to something completely retarded.[/b]
it's policed and scrubbed by Ward Connelly, et. al.
check out the Discussion tabs on global warming topics on wikipedia.
including:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk😲regon_Petition
This is not an encyclopedia article. This is an Op-Ed criticism. There is no summary or overview of the petition and everything that is written about it has some sort of criticism or opinion that undermines the validity of the petition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.38.232 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps you're reading a different article? The one I just looked at did have a summary, as well as the full text of the petition (which fit onto a postcard). Or perhaps, when you say undermines the validity of the petition, you're assuming that the petition was in some way "valid", and thus criticism of it is in some way "invalid". Please note that articles here are to follow the WP:NPOV policy, which includes no presumptions about anything being "valid" on its face. John Broughton | Talk 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment in this thread, this does not read like an encyclopedia article, it reads far more like an op-ed. There is certainly no question whether the writer believes in the validity of the petition. I take issue with the following:
1) "but provides no explanation of how this verification was done"
2) "The text of the petition is often misrepresented"
3) "catastrophic heating and disruption , not "global warming"."
4) "Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as "Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A."
5) "Both Baliunas and Soon have ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical position on global warming since the 1980s"
6) "22-year-old son"
7) "Raymond Pierrehumbert"
8) "Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed"
9) "The verification of the scientists is listed at 95%"
1) 8) & 9) "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated." Granted, they do not explain the methodology for their independent review, but they do claim that the verification was done independently. While this may not be the best explanation of how they reviewed it, it is an explanation. The claim "no explanation of how this verification is done" is a half-truth at best. The claim that "older signatures (submitted via the web) were not removed" has no source. Additionally, the petition site provides examples of names removed. See above Geri Halliwell. Finally the 95% verification number was for signers listing PHDs. Your claim is both wrong and misleading.
2) This is quite irrelevant. You write that the petition is misrepresented as if the pro-global warming crowd isn't misrepresented in the press as to the effects of global warming. Scientists are warning that the temperature could increase a couple of degrees over the next few millennia, but every particularly hot day the press chimes in about global warming. Even Hurricane Katrina was blamed on global warming. Scientist/pundits warned that the next hurricane cycle would be even worse... and what happened during the next hurricane cycle? Almost nothing: only one hurricane hit the US last cycle and it was a category one... little more than a tropical storm. The only purpose of pointing out how the petition has been interpreted is to undermine the credibility of the actual petition by implying, "look how these idiots interpreted it."
3) Global warming is largely understood to be a catastrophic heating and disruption. If not, then there would be no global warming hysteria, and people would instead be talking about how great it is that the farming cycles are getting longer and helping to feed the world's growing population.
4) Frederick Seitz either is or isn't a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University. You do not make this clear. You say he identifies himself as such, casting doubt onto the validity of this, but you do not provide evidence that he is or is not a former president of the national academy of sciences. If he is in fact what he claims to be, then you should identify him as such. Look at the difference in these two sentences A) The petition included a cover letter written by a man who served as former president of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A, and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, Frederick Seitz. and B) The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as "Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.; President Emeritus, Rockefeller University." Sentence A does not cast doubt upon the man's credentials while Sentence B plants a seed of doubt into the mind of the reader. This is evidence of the bias of the author of this article.
5) & 7) You point out ties between the article's authors and their affiliation with a group which has a long history of being skeptical of global warming, you do this to try to detract from their credibility. You then cite to a blogger for your damning quotes against the project on the whole.
6) Why is the age of the son relevant? You make a point of the fact that one of the authors of the article is 22 and a relative of another signer. So what? Why was this included if not to simply smear and attack the credibility of the petition?
Every comment in this article is written from a critical point of view. This article does an awful job of detailing what was in the petition, what was in the article, and what aspects of this petition project are credible. This wiki entry only serves to cast doubt upon the petition project.
Many of the criticisms are fine, and certainly should be part of an article about the project; however, at this point this is a terrible article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.188.94.196 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
and:
I think I am reasonably neutral about this article. I came here only because somewhere I saw a request for help and decided to see what I can do. So here are some of my observations.
As written it is difficult to separate fact from opinion. It might be better to have factual sections about what the petition is, then a new section, Criticism about the petition.
Specific comments by section:
[edit] Text
The text of the petition is often misrepresented
Misrepresented by whom? What references show that it is misrepresented?
The text shows that the petition was misrepresented by its proponents.JQ 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
for example until recently the petition's website stated that "scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis."
How does that example show that the text was misrepresented? Is the website relevant to the text of the petition? If so, is an old version of the website what is relevant or the current website?
The version that stood for ten years after the petition was circulated seems at least as relevant as a recent change (coincidental with attempts to remove criticism on this point from Wikipedia). However, it's probably best to mention both. JQ 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The article associated with the petition (see below) did mention "global warming" twenty-one times and "climate change" four times.
How is that commentary relevant to the text of the petition?
It's relevant to the misrepresentation. JQ 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Covering letter and attached article
The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as ...
Why "identified himself as" instead of the simpler "was"? The phrasing insinuates that perhaps he misrepresented himself.
I've removed reference to Seitz' former position, the linked article covers all thisJQ 04:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not think his former position should be ignored in the article. It establishes his relationship to the subject of the Petition and is relevant information.--Blue Tie 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical position on global warming
Where are the references to verify the ties? It looks like WP😲R. How would any ties be relevant to the article? The statement has the appearance of ad hominem attacks or guilt by association: a) skeptics are kooks; b) the GCM Institute is skeptical; c) GCM is nothing but kooks; d) anyone associated with GCM is a kook; e) their paper must be nonsense.
Given that the authors have their own Wikipedia articles, I've shortened their description to "astrophysicists and GW skeptics", avoiding any selective summary of their various affiliations.JQ 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The fourth and final author was Zachary W. Robinson, Arthur Robinson's 21-year-old son.
The reference for the article lists only the three authors. Why is his age mentioned?
As a general rule, 21-year olds don't write scientific articles, so his age is of interest.JQ 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.
That is no longer verifiable through the cited references. The reference is a link to the petition's website, which now has a newer version of their article. In this situation I don't know what is the right way to handle it. Should the Wikipedia article (as opposed to the OISM article) reflect the facts at the time the petition originally circulated or the facts as they are today? Is it possible to obtain verifiable references to the original OISM article?
Considering its role as an intervention in a political and scientific debate, it seems to me that it is the facts when the petition was circulated that matter most. For example, the claims made about satellite data are now known to be wrong, but the article correctly states that the position was unclear when they were made. JQ 04:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Can a link to a version of the previous article be made to the internet archive? -ftsnorf
Of course William M. Connolley 16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll stop here but repeat my suggestion that criticism be moved to its own section. And for the sake of NPOV, if there are verifiable sources to rebut the criticisms those should be included. Sbowers3 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Separate criticism sections are generally bad style, especially when there is then a rebuttal. But of course, any reliably sourced material responding to criticisms should be coveredJQ 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Originally posted by zeeblebot"As I follow the wikipedia links this just gets better and better, I haven't had a laugh on here this good in a while. The paper in question was published in a journal that isn't recognised by the Web of Science or PubMed (i.e. isn't major literature). But here's the punchline... this "journal" of yours has claimed thus far...
wikipedia is not a useful source for global warming unless you've been Greenwashed and are happy with that.
abortion causes preterm birth later in life, and thus birth defects such as cerebral palsy to future children born to women with a history of abortion
the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,
"humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,
that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,
HIV does not cause AIDS,
the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years."
You've no place to speak about the reliability of sources here.
I note the complete lack of rebuttal to the sourcewatch article. Ok, so posting wikipedia was lazy, so how about you refute these sources instead?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fded5949-97a0-41e8-ad66-bba0fa15e61f
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou can muster 30,000 American Ph.D. holders for just about any cause; for example, you can find 30,000 Ph.D. scientists who think the theory of evolution is false and the world was created in seven days.
i.e., there IS a consensus, but for the opposition position!
I guess I should point out (if someone hasn't already) that a "Ph.D. scientist" in engineering, sociology or botany, say, is in no way whatsoever more qualified to judge the validity of climate data than the average joe. Ph.D. people got to where they are because they did original research in their field, and that means their area of expertise is quite narrow.
There are climate scientists who do not believe global warming is man-made, but they in actual fact represent a small minority of all climate scientists. Does that mean they're wrong? Not necessarily. It used to be that only a minority of biologists believed in the validity of evolution, but that's because at the outset the theory was little-known and only had a scant amount of evidence to back it up. In the case of global warming, well, the theory is no longer new or little-known, and as time goes on those climatologists who believe global warming is bunk are increasingly in the minority owing to the mounting evidence in favor of it. The holdouts are probably less than academically honest, and may actually welcome the notoriety of being a renegade as well as the money they can make giving speeches to their fans. I mean, it can't be a bad way to live, yes?
Interestingly, I note that it wasn't long ago (maybe 10 years) when the global warming naysayers disputed that the planet was even warming at all. Now we hear very little of that. The naysayers have switched tactics, and now say that though the world is indeed warming, it isn't because of human activity. Whatever.
I understand that no logical argumentation will sway the rigid mindset of the typical conspiracy theorist, but my hope is to help dispel any misconceptions among those who haven't yet made up their mind on the matter.
Originally posted by mrstabbydoes he need to be climate scientist to collect a petition?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Cool, so Robinson's trained in Biochemistry and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine specialises in "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging". Is this supposed to be relevant to climate change?
Accordi ...[text shortened]... 000 [b]supposedly qualified signatories to something completely retarded.[/b]
supposedly there is NO credible opposition to AGW amongst climate scientists.
do you think there's ANY petition of significant size that DOESN'T collect any fake signatures?
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo, but he's gone and published a "peer reviewed" paper on climate change in a journal that isn't even recognised by the scientific community - it's seen as a political advocacy group. He blatantly publishes political propaganda, so I'd be wary of seeing him as reliable. Read the quotes - the petition isn't being conducted very well, especially with so many of the scientists they contacted saying they had since changed their position. There is a very small opposition to AGW amongst climate scientists, albeit a vocal one.
does he need to be climate scientist to collect a petition?
supposedly there is NO credible opposition to AGW amongst climate scientists.
do you think there's ANY petition of significant size that DOESN'T collect any fake signatures?
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes of course, YOU'VE been hearing that there's "no opposition", you listen to politicians rather than scientists for your anti-AGW soundbites. Scientists disagree over practically everything. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement, it means general agreement
we've been hearing for years there's NO opposition, the science is settled, the "consensus" is for AGW.
climategate is less than a month old. let's see how the retractions go from here.
The majority of climate scientists agree that we're causing an overall warming effect. Not a single recognised scientific body refutes the basic findings that we're attributable to recent changes in climate. The AAAS, US National Academy of Sciences and American Meteorological Society clearly state there is a consensus. Can you name a scientific establishment that says there is no consensus, or are you only ever going to quote political sources?