The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
To say that the oft-touted “30,000 Global Warming Petition” project stinks would be an understatement. […]
To say that the oft-touted “30,000 Global Warming Petition” project stinks would be an understatement. […]
2 comments
1 | HelloDare Thu, Jul 23, 2009 12:53:42am |
In fairness, shouldn't a similar study be made of the 2,500 scientists who supposedly endorsed the U.N.'s 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report?
I found this from Fred Singer:
How did the IPCC come up with 2,500 scientists? If one were to add up all contributors and reviewers listed in the three IPCC reports published in 1996, one would count about 2,100. The great majority of these are not conversant with the intricacies of atmospheric physics, although some may know a lot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture. Most are social scientists -- or just policy experts and government functionaries. Every country in the world seems to be represented -- from Albania to Zimbabwe -- though many are not exactly at the forefront of research. The list even includes known skeptics of global warming ...
The IPCC report has some 80 authors for its 11 chapters, but only a handful actually wrote the Policymakers' Summary; most of the several hundred listed "contributors" are simply specialists who allowed their work to be cited, without necessarily endorsing the other chapters or the summary. Contrast these numbers with the nearly 100 climate scientists who signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, expressing their doubts about the validity of computer-driven global warming forecasts. It takes a certain amount of courage to do this -- given that it could jeopardize research grants from U.S. government agencies that have adopted climate catastrophe as an article of faith, and managed to convince Congress to ante up about $2 billion a year.
Even some IPCC climate scientists, in the report itself or in a May 16 Science article headlined "Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy," have expressed doubts about the validity of computer models and about the main IPCC conclusion, that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" -- whatever that ambiguous phrase may mean. A Dec. 20, 1995, Reuters report quoted British scientist Keith Shine, one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the IPCC Policymakers� Summary: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors and reviewers; we found that about half did not support the Policymakers' Summary. Parallel surveys by the Gallup organization and even by Greenpeace International produced similar results.
And there's this:
Take for example, the frequent assertion that ‘2500 scientists of the IPCC’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the whole 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (FAR):
“Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
Here’s what Australian climate data analyst, John McLean found when he examined the scientists’ reviews now finally made public:
- Of the 2500 reviewers, only 62 reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” (Working Group I of the FAR);
- Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC bureaucrats;
- Of the 62 scientist reviewers of this chapter, the majority had serious vested interests (see here for details). Only seven scientist reviewers without vested interests are known to have reviewed this chapter.