31,000 US scientists sign petition against hydrocarbon caused Global Warming

[SUBMAN1]

Its about time that the 31,000 said something against the 7 or so that are hyping it up, since the 7 are in the pockets of the control crowd.

-S

Global Warming Grievance

Briefing | By Ben Giles | May 22, 2008

Over 31,000 United States scientists have signed a petition urging the U.S. government “to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.”


At the National Press Club here, Arthur B. Robinson, who led a team of scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in researching the hypothesis of the Kyoto Protocol, presented the petition and his research on the subject at a time when the United Nations and various political interest groups urge the U.S. government to take actions to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Robinson claims his research puts to rest the claim that increased emission of carbon dioxide and other gases are causing the simultaneous global rise in temperature.


“That is a general principle of logic: correlation does not prove causality,” said Robinson. “In this case, hydrocarbons don’t correlate with the temperature; the sun does.”


Robinson’s research does present solar activity as a possible cause of the rise in temperature. However, he is clear that his research in no way presents a culprit for the cause of rising temperatures; it only rebuts the Kyoto argument.


“There is nothing in the correlation that leads us to say it’s all the sun,” said Robinson, “but there is everything in the correlations to say that it isn’t hydrocarbons; they have no measurable factor."

The petition was, in fact, started 10 years earlier, when the Kyoto agreement was first signed by the U.S. government. Since then, the U.S. has refused to sign a ratification of the agreement that would allow the United Nations to monitor America’s output of greenhouse gas. The U.S. is currently the nation that emits the most greenhouse gases, the U.N. alleges.


Now Robinson has started the petition once more, at a time when support of the belief of human-caused global warming has increased in the mainstream media. Robinson mentioned Al Gore’s recent Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, as an example of the popular belief that greenhouse gas emissions are at fault for any climate change that has occurred. In presenting the petition, Robinson hopes to prove that a majority of scientists do not agree with the assumption.


Robinson contends that unlike the United Nations’ discussions in Kyoto, his research has been done in the proper manner dictated by the scientific community. Replies to inquiries of his petition have varied; Robinson would not detail how great the response was, but he noted that negative replies were simply “vulgar.”


“Not a single person, in email and so forth—including people who wrote me email saying I was crazy—has ever contested one of the facts in this paper,” said Robinson. “And I don’t think they can, because we’re very good at out jobs, we’re excellent scientists, and we have been reviewed carefully by brilliant people, and we reference every fact in the literature.”
Robinson added that no scientific paper he’s written has been retracted in the last 20 years.


The petition also argues that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have been beneficial to the environment. Robinson’s report outlines sharp increases in growth of forests in the United States and the Amazonian rain forests, arguably due to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions; trees respond well to carbon dioxide fertilization.


Despite providing alternative evidence to confront the mainstream beliefs about global warming, the petition is grounded in the fact that the hypothesis made in Kyoto, signed over 10 years ago, has failed, and to continue to take government action on the assumptions made at the conference would be irrational.


“I can’t imagine anyone with a background in science proceeding this way,” said Robinson, “where we have a political movement which wants to turn off the energy source that 85 percent of America is fueled by on the basis of a committee that got together to give an answer on a problem that is so far unsolved.”


Robinson reiterated the importance of continuing to advance U.S. capabilities in the use of hydrocarbons as an abundant and low-cost energy source.


“Are we really going to take away the human right to use energy, which is the currency of technology and progress; not only for the American people, but for the poor people around the world, on the basis of this nonsense? It’s just not right, and it’s certainly not science.”

http://www.aim.org/briefing/global-warming-grievance/

[XabbaRus]

Nice try subman, just did some research on the Oregon Petition using OMG Wikipedia to get some quick info and some links (which of course discredits everything I'm going to write here in your view) and basically it is old news and although maybe not discredited fullstop are inconsitencies ie duplicate names etc, business as signatories. Also following on the on the author and what he is affilitated with ie the discovery Institute leads me to take the petition with a grain of salt.

Seems to be a case of having a theory and fitting the facts to prove it instead of looking at the facts and coming up with a theory to explain the facts.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Nice try subman, just did some research on the Oregon Petition using OMG Wikipedia to get some quick info and some links (which of course discredits everything I'm going to write here in your view) and basically it is old news and although maybe not discredited fullstop are inconsitencies ie duplicate names etc, business as signatories. Also following on the on the author and what he is affilitated with ie the discovery Institute leads me to take the petition with a grain of salt.

Seems to be a case of having a theory and fitting the facts to prove it instead of looking at the facts and coming up with a theory to explain the facts.

Lets see, you are discrediting 31K signatures vs a few? So what if a few were duplicated? 31K people of stature, 9,000 with PhD's mind you, don't sign something like this without it being completely accurate. Maybe you missed this part:

“Not a single person, in email and so forth—including people who wrote me email saying I was crazy—has ever contested one of the facts in this paper,” said Robinson. “And I don’t think they can, because we’re very good at out jobs, we’re excellent scientists, and we have been reviewed carefully by brilliant people, and we reference every fact in the literature.”

Robinson added that no scientific paper he’s written has been retracted in the last 20 years.

And on top of all this, there are some other dramatic consequences of the Kyoto protocol as well, but that is best left to another thread.

And by the way, why wouldn't the discovery institute come to him if he can help them find what they are looking for? Duh!!! That type of argument means you can raise that doubt against everything!

One more thing to add to the fire - Global Warming is 'not a theory' since it has been debunked. It can't stand up to scrutiny.

Here is another reason why its BS:

“That is a general principle of logic: correlation does not prove causality,” said Robinson. “In this case, hydrocarbons don’t correlate with the temperature; the sun does.”

I like how we have conversations around here where you say everything in this article is BUNK becuase some guy worked on a project for some other guy? Nice try.

-S

PS. Just a clue - he never said he had a theory. His simply discredited the GW theory since its not based on Science. This is how real science works. Excuse me, i should have called GW a hypothesis since it was never proven with fact.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Nice try subman, just did some research on the Oregon Petition using OMG Wikipedia to get some quick info and some links (which of course discredits everything I'm going to write here in your view) and basically it is old news and although maybe not discredited fullstop are inconsitencies ie duplicate names etc, business as signatories. Also following on the on the author and what he is affilitated with ie the discovery Institute leads me to take the petition with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Seems to be a case of having a theory and fitting the facts to prove it instead of looking at the facts and coming up with a theory to explain the facts.

I can already imagine what nonsens is being repeated here by just seeing the headline. i can also assume that once again it is "Accuray in Media" being the centre to which is being referred, and from where it originally has been started back then. however, that site has a wellknown bad reputation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...uracy_In_Media

Accuracy in Media (AIM) has grown from a one-person crusade to a million-dollar-a-year operation by attacking the mainstream media for abandoning the principles of "fairness, balance and accuracy" in its reporting. New Right philanthropies, think tanks and media support its work, and many members of its advisory board are former diplomats, intelligence agents and corporate directors.

AIM was founded by Reed Irvine in 1969, when Irvine called for sedition charges to be brought against Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the Progressive Labor Party, arguing, "If you're going to halt treason, you've got to do it while it's small." [Village Voice, January 21, 1986]

In the 1970s, Irvine endeared himself to the New Right by alleging that the corporate media were a propaganda tool for the Soviet KGB and Fidel Castro. In 1982, AIM attacked New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner for his reports (later proven accurate--see Extra!, January/February 1993) about the El Mozote massacre. Along with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, AIM succeeded in pressing the Times to pull Bonner from his Salvadoran beat.

Irvine later called for napalm to be used against FMLN guerrillas in El Salvador. (AIM Report, March 1990). During the Gulf War, he encouraged a nuclear strike against Iraq. [Seattle Times, January 16, 1991]

With the end of the Cold War, AIM now assails environmentalists as the "infiltrators" of the media establishment. Critical reports about industries that fund AIM--such as chemical and oil interests--ara a frequent target of AIM critiques.

During the Clinton era, alleged conspiracies related to the Democratic president were a frequent topic in AIM's work--particularly the notion that Vince Foster was not a suicide but a victim of foul play. AIM charged that Republicans, including independent counsel Kenneth Starr, were somehow complicit in covering up Clinton's plots; discussing Hillary Rodham Clinton's notion of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," Irvine retorted that "the only conspiracy I knew of was the conspiracy of the Republican leadership to protect Bill Clinton." [AIM Report, February 1998]

AIM has been criticized as a censorious group eager to silence voices it disagrees with and disdainful of the First Amendment. The group for a time offered as a donation premium Target America, written by AIM board member James L. Tyson, a book advocating that government "ombudsmen" police major-network newscasts for "accuracy" and "fairness".


Funders
Bethlehem Steel
Carthage Foundation; see Scaife Foundations
Chevron
Ciba-Geigy
Coors Foundation
Dressor Industries
Exxon
Lawrence Fertig Foundation
Getty Oil
Horizon Oil and Gas
IBM
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
F.M. Kirby Foundation
Mobil Foundation
Pepsico
Phillips Petroleum Company
Smith Richardson Charitable Trust; also see Smith Richardson Foundation
Texaco Philanthropic Foundation
Union Carbide

And some info they have on the Scaife Foundation, which may not be known by many people, while the other names pretty much speak for themselves.

Scaife Foundations
The Scaife Foundations consist of the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, the Allegheny Foundation and the Scaife Family Foundation. All four have been heavily involved in financing conservative causes under the direction of reclusive billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, uranium and banking fortune.

The Mellon fortune is built on at least 5 pillars; the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corporation, the family's monopoly ownership of Alcoa and Alcan going back to 1891, ownership of Koppers and Carborundum corporations, and their participation in the uranium cartel.

The Foundation commenced funding conservative "causes" in 1973 when Richard Mellon Scaife became the foundation's chairman. During the 1960s, Richard inherited an estimated $200 million from his mother, Sarah. His net personal worth was estimated at $800 million by Forbes magazine, which would make Richard the 38th richest person in the United States. Richard controls the Scaife, Carthage, and Alleghany foundations. In 1993 alone, the Scaife and Carthage foundations donated more than $17.6 million to conservative think tanks.

Some years ago, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation was estimated to be worth $200 million. Since Richard took charge of the foundation in 1973, it began to finance "New Right" causes.

Although Scaife has dedicated vast sums of money to influencing the way the public thinks, he prefers to operate behind the scenes, granting few interviews. When former Wall Street Journal reporter Karen Rothmyer attempted to interview him in 1981, he responded by calling her a "****ing Communist ****" and telling her to "get out of here."

Between 1985 and 2001, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation donated $15,860,000 to the Heritage Foundation; $7,333,000 to the Institute for Policy Analysis; $6,995,500 to the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; $6,693,000 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); $4,411,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $2,575,000 to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; $1,855,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute; $1,808,000 to the Hudson Institute; and $1,697,000 to the Cato Institute.

For the years 1985-2001, the Scaife Family Foundation donated $702,640 to the Heritage Foundation; $590,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $275,000 to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University; $200,000 to the CSIS; and $175,000 to the New Citizenship Project, Inc., alone.

Recently, however, the Scaife Family Foundation came under the control of Scaife's daughter Jennie and has changed focus. It continues to give some money to conservative causes, but most of its funding now goes to nonpolitical projects such as medical programs, treatment for substance abuse (a problem for several family members) and animal welfare. Jennie Scaife said that her father doesn't support her spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights. However, the Charlotte Observer reported in July 2003 that Scaife donated money to Children Requiring A Caring Community, which pays poor women, especially those addicted to drugs, either to be sterilized or to undergo long-term birth control

As I often said, the war against a consenus on global warming, and against the process being taken as a reason to take action against economical interests that does not want to change but continue to do business as usual and to hell with all envrionmental concerns, is being waged by propaganda campaign supported with several hundreds of millions of dollar. The only purpose is to discredit all and everything that defends that global wamring is taking place, is threatening and damaging, and is caused by man, and to raise doubt on scientific results showing this - at all cost, no matter how absurd or scientifically distorted the counter-"arguments" are. Behind that stands the knowledge that if you repeat untruths just often enough and yell loud enough, people will start to believe it.

Just today's news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7418041.stm

You cannot truly depict climate if you only look at the imminent future of the next ten years or so. Climate and atmosphere simply do not work that way, and so simplistic. they even create paradoxical short-termed effects that in the short run seem to support denial of warming, but by their mere existence in fact prove that warming is taking place. the growing of ice in one half (only one half) of the antarctic (while the other half is decreasing!), or the reversing of greening at the end of the green phase of the "carbondioxide is helping to help the planet' plants"-fairy-tale when the produced carbondioxide from the additonal biomass starts to nullify and then to kill the shortly won additional green, are just two examples.

In other words: climate sceptics just look as many days into the furture as is opportunistic for them, and leaves them the freedom to ingore all medium and longterm consequences. they compare to pedestrians who look at the ground immediartely before their feet while walking, so they cannot sumble, and for exactly that reason run into every wall and against all telephone poles they meet.

[Skybird]

I just unlocked that starting posting and had a look.

What a surprise - it IS Accuracy in Media indeed.

Yawn.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh my gosh. Now you are discrediting the site that is reporting it because it is funded by whom? Are you guys for real? You are just like the guys sending that Robinson email - you can't attack his facts, so you are looking for a pathetic little foothold! It's actually quite funny!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Wow! AIM actually has some high profile people on its board (These are not the funders mind you, but the people who run the show):

Office holders

• Don Irvine, Chairman (also heads Parents and Grandparents Alliance)
• Samuel Shepard Jones, Jr., Treasurer and General Counsel
• Joan Hueter, Director, (Former President, National Association of Pro-America)
• Malcolm E. Smith, Retired Advertising Executive
• Nancy Morgan, Conservative activist
• Trevor Armbrister, Author

[edit]
National Advisory Board

• Arnold Beichman, Writer and Analyst
• Midge Decter, Writer
• Charlton Heston, Actor
• Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN (Ret), Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
• R. Adm. William C. Mott, USN (Ret), Vice-President, National Strategy Information Center
• Dr. Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
• James L. Tyson, President, Council for the Defense of Freedom

[edit]
Staff

• Deborah Lambert, Director of Special Projects
• John Wessale, Executive Assistant
• Charles Rozier, Director of the Speakers Bureau
• Roger Aronoff, Media Analyst and Documentary Producer
• Claudia L. Mason, Administrative Assistant
• Mercedes M. Amaya, Mailroom Manager
• Cliff Kincaid, AIM Report Editor
• James Davis, Financial Consultant
• Jerris Leonard, Attorney

[edit]

[XabbaRus]

Well according to the National Academy of Sciences it has never been peer reviewed (by them) and that it was written in the style of a National Academy Proceedings publication.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Its about time that the 31,000 said something against the 7 or so that are hyping it up, since the 7 are in the pockets of the control crowd.

-S

Read it instead of just quoting for once. Educate yourself. In fact didn't you quote that same dumbassed petition last time?

[Safe-Keeper]

Co2 doesn't warm the Earth if scared off by political pressure.

Ha, I found it,

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...regon+petition
#144, page 4

Why did you link to that?! That thread was so full of fail from the deniers that it's scary. I shall have to poke my eyes out with rusty sticks.

[Schroeder]

Come on guys. Wasn't it great back in the 70s when no one gave a damn for pollution (not that I was already alive then)? We had fat cars, cheap gas, no worries....

Yes, we (in Germany) also had dead rivers (no one would have been stupid enough to swim in them), our rain contained a big part of acid which damaged all plants, we had plenty poisonous substances in the air that made us sick etc...but was that realy important?

And those freaks came and claimed that this was all bs. Now we have clean rivers again in which animals live!!! Who needs that?
I can walk again through a city without a pinch in my lung (maybe I have to start smoking to get that great feeling again) and the acid amount in the rain has also lowered.
I don't know how they could do that to us!!!
It was all so nice back with all the pollution.

@Subman
I'm fully on your side! Do what ever you can to stop those tree worshippers before they manage to screw up our lives. I don't know how these fools can dare to trade economical interests to unimportant things like health, responsibility for the planet, nice landscapes (some have even turned green again already, pah!!!) and conserving energy for our grandchildren. It's pathetic indeed.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

...@Subman
I'm fully on your side! Do what ever you can to stop those tree worshippers before they manage to screw up our lives. I don't know how these fools can dare to trade economical interests to unimportant things like health, responsibility for the planet, nice landscapes (some have even turned green again already, pah!!!) and conserving energy for our grandchildren. It's pathetic indeed.

First off, I'm for less pollution, but not at the expense of energy needed for progress so that we can develope the tools we need to keep our planet pollution clean. This energy you talk about cutting back on will kill roughly 3 Billion people. Time to get ugly in this thread I can see.

So much for your conserving grandchildren theory.

-S

PS. Some things to keep in mind you brainwashed monkeys! Each one of you that continues down this path is a baby killer in my opinion.

“World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”

Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.


Dennis Avery, Director for the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. “Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing,” said Avery. “To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.”

The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away.

When the U.N. and others want to limit hydrocarbons, which account for 85% of the current United States energy supplies, the consequences are disastrous, Robinson said.


“America is buying 30 percent of its energy abroad... Now we’re getting to the point where we can’t afford energy abroad,” said Robinson. “The problem was created by state and federal taxation against…now they want to [make]…further regulations that will stop these hydrocarbons.”

“We wouldn’t have six billion people on Earth without technology,” said Robinson. “If you reduce energy, you [are also] reducing technology. The biggest problem is people in the third world who die in enormous numbers.”
Avery said that a vast number of people are already suffering in the third world, because they are forced to cook inside their homes.


“The indoor cooking fires in the third world are vastly more harmful to the health of women and children than smoking cigarettes,” said Avery. “If you eliminate their opportunity to move up from burning dung and straw and wood to burning kerosene…then you are eliminating their possibility of having healthy lungs.”

In addition, Avery said that energy restrictions cause “an awful lot of premature deaths.” However, if Green Peace decides to eliminate nitrogen fertilizer, even more people will suffer.


“If we eliminate the nitrogen fertilizer, then that will cut the world’s crop fields in half immediately,” said Avery. “Half the world will be hungry.”

Robinson said that the U.N. is doing more harm than good.

[Schroeder]

“We wouldn’t have six billion people on Earth without technology,” said Robinson. “If you reduce energy, you [are also] reducing technology. The biggest problem is people in the third world who die in enormous numbers.”
Avery said that a vast number of people are already suffering in the third world, because they are forced to cook inside their homes.


“The indoor cooking fires in the third world are vastly more harmful to the health of women and children than smoking cigarettes,” said Avery. “If you eliminate their opportunity to move up from burning dung and straw and wood to burning kerosene…then you are eliminating their possibility of having healthy lungs.”

This is the most stupid stuff I heard for a long time. It's not about reducing technology, just the opposite. We shall use better technology that needs less energy. That's the plan. Kyoto doesn't want us to go back to the stone age. We shall reduce our output of CO2 (and other stuff) by ADVANCING in technology.
Here in Germany for example they are developing a new car called LOREMO.
It shall have a gas mileage of 120miles/gallon.
That is just one example how a CO2 reduction can be achieved. I think Mr. Robinson is trying to create panic by scaring people with a horror story of the return of the middle ages. Not very professional IMO.

People in the third world need kerosene to cook? Well, there is a solution for the sunny parts of the world: parabolic reflectors.
They don't need any energy at all. Why isn't he considering this? As if fossil energy would be without any alternatives....

Besides, what are we all supposed to do when we run out of fossil energy?
If we continue like this we will remain extremely dependent on oil. The rising oil price will be disastrous. We have to do something NOW. If we start thinking about this after it has hit us it's surely too late.

In addition, Avery said that energy restrictions cause “an awful lot of premature deaths.”However, if Green Peace decides to eliminate nitrogen fertilizer, even more people will suffer.

I'm not sure whether I understand this text correctly. Is he talking about fertilizers as energy? Or is he claiming that the energy restrictions will kill people and the elimination of nitrogen fertilizers will add to it?

If he claims that the reduction of energy consumption is killing someone I would like to know how that shall be possible. As I already said, we aren't supposed to switch all machines off that we have. We shall develop them further so that they can do the same things as now but with less energy consumption.

“If we eliminate the nitrogen fertilizer, then that will cut the world’s crop fields in half immediately,” said Avery. “Half the world will be hungry.”

I'm no expert for fertilizers but there are alternatives:
.Doc about fertilizers

I'm not sure whether they can be used as substitutes, I have to leave that to someone who knows something about this.

Time to get ugly in this thread I can see..

I did not intend to offend you with my last post. It was just supposed to be an eye opener.

[bradclark1]

:rotfl: :rotfl: That Robinson is rich. Must be a headliner at Comedy Central.

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

And those freaks came and claimed that this was all bs. Now we have clean rivers again in which animals live!!! Who needs that?

I WAS alive during the 1970's and i'd be interested in hearing where you got the idea that people were claiming pollution was BS. IIRC nobody denied that pollution existed or that it was harmful. Hard to ignore a polluted river. The smell alone will draw your attention to it.

Global warming on the other hand is a lot more like the ice age scares of the same time period. Lots of preaching and vaguely defined threats, like increased and more powerful hurricanes for example, that don't seem to pan out. Often accompanied by requests for increased funding...