<p>Mercymom, the “Oregon petition” is a notorious fraud which has been debunked long ago. The “peer reviewed” article was published in a phony right wing “medical” journal which also “debunks” evolution, the “theory” that AIDS is caused by HIV virus, vaccination, and insists that abortion causes breast cancer, among other things.</p>
<p>the end of the world is upon us (or, it will be, anyway)…</p>
<p>Interesting, Kluge. Do you have any citations? I’ve never heard of the Oregon petition before, but read about it in a newspaper article that also cited the NYC conference last week.</p>
<p>Here it is, courtesy of Wikipedia. The petition article was published in the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons in 2007 (which the Wikipedia entry does say subjects all articles to a double blind peer review):</p>
<p>[Association</a> of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons]Association”>Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Feel free to form your own opinion. That’s what it’s all about.</p>
<p>Here’s a discussion of the “Oregon Petition” from Wikipedia: [Oregon</a> Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition]Oregon”>Oregon Petition - Wikipedia) The “Journal” is discussed here: [neurodiversity</a> weblog: Strange Bedfellows](<a href=“Home - Neurodiversity in Business”>Home - Neurodiversity in Business) The “peer reviewed” article is discussed here: [OISM</a> - RCwiki](<a href=“http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM]OISM”>http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM)</p>
<p>The main problem with the Oregon Petition is that there was no effort made to determine if the signatories had any expertise - at all - in climate science. Or, for that matter, if they were real people. It’s a PR stunt, nothing more.</p>
<p>Kluge; I’d be very interested in an official statement by some “Prominent” scientists and experts saying that this report is in fact void of credibility and is a PR stunt. I think we have ALL AGREED that none of us are experts, therefor if we are going to say something is VALID or INVALID concerning global warming / climate change studies, then we need to hear of it’s validity or invalidity from someone who knows more than us. I’m sure you have some documents from the “experts” that says this petition and opinions is invalid and is a PR stunt. Right??? You do have this, correct???</p>
<p>[IPCC</a> - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change](<a href=“http://www.ipcc.ch/]IPCC”>http://www.ipcc.ch/)</p>
<p>[OISM</a> - RCwiki](<a href=“http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM]OISM”>http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM)</p>
<p>The National Academy of Sciences news release:“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.” “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”</p>
<p>And Christcorp - a certain degree of legitimacy should be respected, no? The medical “Journal” which published the study is not recognized as a bona fide scientific publication - even for medicine, let alone climate studies. It is, however, listed in “Quackwatch.”</p>
<p>Since Wikipedia seems to have a little bit of everything in it, here is a list of scientists (as opposed to skeptics, who are on a different list) with real honest to god scientific credentials, who believe one or more of the following:</p>
<p>1) global warming not occurring;
2) IPCC report flawed, various reasons;
3) global warming is a natural process not man made;
4) global warming cause unknown;
5) global warming will help, not hurt, humanity (various reasons)</p>
<p>[List</a> of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming]List”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)</p>
<p>…it’s getting almost comical watching the responses to kluge here. One would think that after 5 or 6 “scientific” and “legitimate” articles/studies/petitions in a row were shown to be pretty clearly absurd, people would stop trying. But I guess not.</p>
<p>fwiw - personally I’m in favor of high mileage cars, alternative fuels, energy independence, green bldgs, green anything, reducing pollution, pro-wind, pro solar, etc.</p>
<p>I’m familiar with the IPCC. I’ll trust you that the NAS said that the petition does not reflect the opinion or position of the academy. But does the academy or the IPCC go as far as to say specifically what they disagree with concerning the petition?</p>
<p>Realclimate.org obviously has some disagreements with the OISM paper. They mention quite a few things they believe is incorrect with the OISM paper. They don’t really go into what they believe is the “Correct” position, but I’m sure they do some place. </p>
<p>Definitely more reading. No epiphany or anything, but something to read. There has always been disagreements on both sides. Many times, the reasons “Why” are pretty weak. But they seem strong enough for some people to hang onto as gospel. The OISM seems like a reputable organization; including collaboration with a past president of the NAS which now disagrees with him. As well as nobel prize winners and such. This does beg to question; why are these “experts”, which include tech graduates, NAS members/officers, nobel prize winners, and other credentials, not considered credible in their opinions. When I see things like this, that bring about such questions, it makes me believe that certain positions and opinions on the subject are not totally void of politics or other agendas instead of just the truth.</p>
<p>And no, 1 of 42, there hasn’t been a rash of articles and such being shown as absurd. All that is being shown is that not everyone agrees with the global warming findings; and not everyone agrees with those who DON’T agree with the global warming finding. That has been the premise of this argument. Unfortunately, some believe it is possible for room for such debate. others believe that there is no debate. That one side is 100% right and any opposing opinion has to be wrong. Without exception.</p>
<p>Yep, Mercymom, those are the guys. Now, here’s an exercise: Look at how many of them are listed as “emeritus” or “retired”. Look at how many are associated with mining or petroleum in some way. There are a few left over - but not many. And then, most importantly - look for their scientific research – peer reviewed articles (in real science publications.) Keep looking.</p>
<p>The IPCC involved 2,000 active scientists. There are hundreds of published articles affirming, endorsing, or assuming the validity of anthropomorphic climate change, in rigorous scientific studies. There are fewer than ten taking the opposing view. </p>
<p>I see a lot of retired guys getting a day in the sun by announcing a “bold” “contrarian” stance - which costs them nothing, and requires no actual work, but gets them attention. It’s a sad phenomenon I’ve seen among academics in other areas before as well. Remember Linus Pauling and Vitamin C?</p>
<p>Christcorp: Interesting article on the late Dr. Seitz here: [Fred</a> Seitz: Death of an Icon | DeSmogBlog](<a href=“http://www.desmogblog.com/fred-seitz-death-of-an-icon]Fred”>Fred Seitz: Death of an Icon - DeSmog)</p>
<p>This has been an interesting read for the past week, all this talk about competing scientists and theories. Wow.</p>
<p>But as Arnold Toynbee wrote “civilizations die from suicide, not by murder” and I ponder if we may have already crossed a tipping point where our fate is settled regardless of what laws are passed or treaty agreements inked.</p>
<p>A broader question in your analogy may be - what is the cause of death? Is it the global warming or is it the economic chaos that results from an ill-fated attempt to reverse the global warming? Will historians in the future look back at the fall of Western economic might and the rise of India and China and attribute it to the economic “suicide” committed by the West?</p>
<p>^^I worry a lot about the economic costs of fixing global warming. Barring some huge technological breakthrough that permits us to cheaply and easily sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere, it’s not going to be pretty.</p>
<p>BUT, I worry even more about the economic costs of NOT fixing global warming - coastal cities flooded, formerly productive parts of the country drying up, mass displacement of people and industries seeking places where the weather is still tolerable and water is still available, whole cities and entire industries being ruined, etc, etc. Climate-wise, British Columbia becomes the new California, which might be exciting for BC but an economic disaster for CA and the US along with it.</p>
<p>The economic problem that comes with doing nothing is that our economy is built around the climate as it is NOW. And to the extent the climate changes into somethng else, so will the economy - very likely not to our benefit. I’m not talking about weeping over extinct polar bears. I’m talking about extinct US farms and factories.</p>
<p>I don’t know about y’all, but I live in the South; it’s March 10, and I’m FREEZING!!</p>
<p>BTW, I agree with this comment by mercymom:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking of China, here’s an interesting article about China surpassing the US in CO2 emissions. Did you know that China produces 44% of the world’s cement, and that cement production is one of the worst for emitting CO2? Here’s the article:</p>
<p>[China</a> overtakes US as world’s biggest CO2 emitter | Environment | guardian.co.uk](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews]China”>China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter | Environment | The Guardian)</p>
<p>India and Brazil are mentioned briefly.</p>
<p>Dang! Just trying to read these posts gives me a headache. </p>
<p>It is all cyclical, folks… just take a course in agricultural meteorology at a land-grant university!! Yes, we studied the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion even in the 1980’s, but not even 30 years ago, climatologists were also wondering if we were headed for another ice age!! </p>
<p>And in all honesty and at the risk of being horribly politically incorrect (which, by the way obviously does not bother me in the least), “global warming” if true, is one of the best things that could happen for our agricultural scientists. Warmer temps = more growing degree days = longer growing season = more crop production = better development of biofuels and bioengineering technology. That also = more pest problems longer into the season = more jobs for agricultural plant pathologists, entomologists, weed and seed scientists, plant breeders, agricultural meteorologists/climatologists and many other biological scientists, ensuring job security and higher paying jobs for my cohorts for many years to come. I am sick and tired of pseudo-scientists and their gloom and doom attitudes! Time to wake up and smell the corn and beans and cotton growing.</p>
<p>Christcorp, you are right on target. Macro ‘Climate changes’ are not man-made. There are many cycles in nature, and we are simply watching this one occur. </p>
<p>Do I feel an obligation to care for the earth? Absolutely. I feel compelled to use wise agricultural practices to take care of our precious topsoil. This includes among many other things soil testing and lawn and crop monitoring for insects, weeds, and diseases so I am not using chemicals unnessarily when pest problems are below economic thresholds. But my stewardship should be in all areas of life, including caring for the needy. I wonder how many of us get all bent out of shape over global climate issues but don’t take care of the needs of our neighbors? </p>
<p>Okay, I am done venting :D. Just be educated, folks. And look at the statistical analyses of the studies. Know statistical terms and how to interpret data. I mean REALLY know what conclusions are being drawn and what is being extrapolated. And don’t be too quick to jump on a bandwagon without your field research (and many years of it, at that) behind you. I’ve seen too many scientists who end up looking awfully foolish for jumping too quickly to a conclusion simply to be one of the first ones recognized.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>30 years is a long time in this century’s rapid scientific progress, especially in an area as evolving as climate science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting point of view, given that the significant majority (read: almost all) of climate scientists disagree with you. Do you have some kind of legitimate evidence (peer-reviewed journal articles, or some such) for your claim, or is it just your personal opinion?</p>
<p>Actually, even 30 years ago the majority of climate scientists had already tentatively concluded that greenhouse gas accumulation was likely to result in global warming, based on the data then available and using essentially the same model which is used today. The consensus back then was not as overwhelming as it is now, but as further study has pushed the science along, answering many questions and refining the data and the models, it has grown among those who are involved in the study of global climate.</p>