We've previously run a story about 17,000 scientists signing a petition expressing their doubts about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (btw: this running petition now has over 19,000 signatures). This story caused quite a bit of hate mail from loonies who claimed that this petition was a hoax. They contend that the signatures are not verified. At one time the petition names weren't being verified as quickly as they came in and some people out to discredit the petition were able to sneak in some bogus names. These names did not stay very long. Here is a message from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine who is hosting the petition:

“In a listing of this size, some apparently duplicate names and some names identical to real or fictional people who are not scientists or signatories occur by chance. This listing has been very carefully verified. It contains one and only one entry for each scientist and contains no entries for individuals who are not trained in science or who did not sign the petition.”

Again, 19,000 scientists can't be wrong.

Now another group of 100 scientists has sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking them to stop wasting resources on fighting nature and to start helping people adjust:

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

“it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.

“because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

“are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great - majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents

These scientists go on to counter many points of the IPCC report:

• “Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.”
  
• “The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years”
  
• “Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.”

“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

“The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragicmisallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems. ”

The signatories are almost all PhD's in the fields of Climatology, Meteorology, Physics, etc. Many are the heads of major university and research departments. You can see who was willing to put their name beside these statements and their qualifications (link below). There is no “consensus” in the scientific community that man has caused global warming, quite the opposite. So the next time someone tells you that all scientists agree that man is causing global warming refer them to this letter and the petition above. When you hear about the 2,500 IPCC scientists that signed The Fourth Assessment Report (Climate Change 2007) what you don't hear is that most are not actually involved in the preparation of these documents. Some of the scientists helped contribute bits and pieces but the final report is put together by a handful of political appointees in conjunction with their home country politicians. Every word is gone over with a fine tooth comb by bureaucrats looking for a competitive edge in the world economy. See the Wall Street Journal story below by IPCC scientist (and anthropogenic climate change 'denier') John R. Christy.

References:

• Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations - Written by 100 Prominent Scientists, 14 December 2007
  
• Global Warming Petition - This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists. The petition reads in part “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.”
  
• “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over - by Viscount Monckton for the Science and Public Policy Institute. “among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.”
  
• “Don't Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet” - by John Stossel at Townhall.com. “Recently on "20/20," I said "give me a break" to Al Gore for claiming that the global-warming debate is over and suggesting that all dissenters were in it for the money. I interviewed independent scientists who say Gore is wrong.”
  
• “How Gore and Media Fabricated a Global Warming Consensus” - by Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters.org.
  
• “My Nobel Moment” - by John R. Christy writing in The Wall Street Journal. Just one of the IPCC scientists that did not agree with the final report. Many others were afraid to speak up as most were politically appointed in their home countries. Here is a quote from Christy's letter “I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.” -- Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Share or Bookmark this Article Using:
| furl | reddit | del.icio.us | magnoliacom | digg | newsvine | Stumble_it | Facebook | Google | Fark | Sphere | Netscape | Technorati | Yahoo! | Add to Favorites and Additional Bookmarks: GlobalWarmingHoax.com - Where the Truth Heats Up ™