31000 scientists sign Oregon GW Skeptic Petition
By Dennis Avery Saturday, May 24, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3214

In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute’s website (oism.org). It quickly attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science. Widely known as the Oregon Petition, it became a counter-weight for the “all scientists agree” mantra of the man-man Global Warming crowd.

Recently, with America being dragged toward Kyoto-style energy limits by cadres of alarmists, Robinson mailed a new copy of the petition to his original signers, asking them to recruit additional qualified scientists. Now his list includes nearly 32,000 American man-made warming skeptics with science qualifications. More than 9,000 hold scientific PhDs. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happens to be twelve times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.

Last week Robinson held a press meeting at the National Press Club in DC, followed by a luncheon on Capital Hill, to which members of Congress and their aides were invited. Not surprisingly, attendance was low.

Robinson’s petition states a truth: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth’s warming since 1850 if it isn’t CO2? He points to the sun. Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth’s temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen. The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000. The computer models didn’t foresee it.

The correlation between Earth’s temperatures and CO2 is only at the “accidental” level—22 percent and declining sharply over the past decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2 levels. Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.

The Oregon chemist warns that “no other major scientific problem has ever been tackled the way the UN has approached global warming.” The UN hosted a big meeting of scientists, he says, and then a small group of “authors” summarized the discussions into a global action plan. But the UN has never produced any evidence that humans are warming our climate. The UN panel says CO2 became the culprit “by the process of elimination” but such a process is neither scientific nor admissible in a court of law.

The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity’s greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth’s net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C.

“If CO2 isn’t causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, “The cold spells and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed, threaten human lives on the planet.”

the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science.

I think the increase in carbon emissions caused by humans could hit a brick wall long before 2050. The question then becomes whether natural emissions such as methane then take over. Some say world crude oil production is declining by at least 4% a year and it is doubtful whether biofuel, tar sands and gas/coal-to-liquids can plug the growing gap. Extra coal fired electrical generation for transport electrification may hit bottlenecks, steep price rises and the threat of carbon taxes whether they eventuate or not. Heavy coal use in China and India is causing its own problems. So I question whether we'll even make it to 2050 in one piece.

“We have lost ten years talking about climate change but not acting on it.”

This is the problem with the AGW fear mongers. They would rather work on climate research than work on solutions.

For those who missed it, the Bush administration establish reducing ghg emissions as a priority in the May of 2001 with the National Energy Policy. It is interesting that you do not need an treaty or an army of new regulators to do the right thing.

The first step is to ban jet setting climate professional and AGW fear mongers,

“UN climate change conference in Bali last December”

I would suggest cultural reeducation centers in North Dakota. We would retrain all these useless folks to do maintenance on wind turbines. A little safety training and send them to chip ice at the top. A winter in North Dakota would be followed a summer in the desert cleaning solar panels.

Aussie "The question then becomes whether natural emissions such as methane then take over."

An excellent point - but quite unrelated to your questionable prediction of peak energy. I don't believe that you're talking about runaway atmospheric temperatures due to the sudden release of methane hydrates.

The slow inexorable release of methane due to the warming of tundra combined with the rot from deforestation, as well as an ever increasing population of large ruminants (for our consumption) will increasingly become a significant contributor to warming.

As per the report, the predictions are dire, so bold steps are required.

Solutions?

1) In the short run, require industry to get as much natural gas production up to speed as possible (despite the cost), followed by oil. Then ban the burning of coal if at all possible. If a total ban is not possible, then institute a punitive tax on coal burning. Ban all subsidies for petroleum and its distribution. Subsidize the decommissioning of coal industry.

2) Spend billions upon billions on family planning and education to actively promote small family size. Empower women worldwide.

3) Spends billions upon billions to teach efficient farming methods, and to provide rational assistance with irrigation, seed and fertilizer. Ban all farm subsidies worldwide. Ban grazing on marginal lands, especially that which is owned by governments.

4) Spend billions upon billions on a crash program to develope solar energy. Subsidize the production and distribution of electricity from solar energy.

5) Institute a punitive tax on the production of ruminant animals. Progressive punitive taxation on the production of inefficient and polluting foodstuffs should be implemented.

6) Develope and implement strict heating and cooling standards for existing and future buildings. Subsidize the insulation of existing structures.

7) Require the use of best methods to reduce energy use in industry. Subsidize the transition to low energy input and low polluting production.

8) Develope and implement strict efficiency standard for transportation. Ban the use of trucking when rail is an avaiable option. Subsidize the removal of inefficient machinery from existing stocks.

Hey, number 8 is our subject. Wasn't this fun!

JC

Acquired behavior (and believe) is difficult to change. Any fix has to hit hard enough to hurt. One good example is fuel price. We all noticed a change in vehicle purchase behavior when fuel price reached $4+/gal.

The message would be a lot stronger when fuel price reaches $8+/gal. However, it may take something around $12+/gal to convince the hard core.

To get from $4/gal to $8/gal will require oil price of about $200/barrel + and increase in fuel/carbon tax to at least an additional $1/gal. To reach $12/gal we need a progressive monthly increase in fuel tax equivalent to another $4/gal.

Increase in CO2, GHG and/or global warming are not suffisant to change our behavior. The $$$ is a much stronger change factor and will have to be used.

The best way to minimize world wide Co2 output is to deal with coal fired generation in the coal rich countries. The American approach to meet this challenge was FutureGen; a clean coal technology. Why was this critical project canceled? It was pork barrel politics.

From this Boston Globe article …

“The Department of Energy said it withdrew its 75 percent support from FutureGen last month because its cost had almost doubled, from $1 billion to $1.8 billion. Some have suggested the real motive might have been lingering opposition to the choice of Mattoon by administration officials from Texas, which lost out in the selection process. A former aide to a Texas congressman who is now an Energy Department official, C.H. "Bud" Albright, has said the department axed FutureGen because it was not interested in "building Disneyland in some swamp in Illinois."

The problem here is not technology but myopic politics. Keep this point in mind when you next vote.

@ Esabre ~> I just wonder how tightly Arthur Robinson and his almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happen to be connected to OIL Companies. It seems that every time we dig into these 'anti-change' groups we find people making Oil money.
As for the solar component of climate change .. yes, there is one. Trouble is, we can't exactly change what the sun does, but we can change what we do. Getting off oil should be a goal for many reasons, and global warming is only one of them.

@ JC ~> I like your list but have a few additional suggestions for getting off oil / coal / gas and onto renewable energy on a world wide basis. Note that ruminants making CO2 are also eating plants that absorb CO2, so their contribution to the problem is somewhat mitigated.

To get off OIL

1 ) Make a “world standard plug” for recharging Battery Electric Cars (BEV) and Plug in Hybrid Electric Cars (PHEV). Have these mandatory at all public parking in shopping large plazas, theaters, restaurants, etc. Begin with mandating one installed, then increase as the numbers of BEV's increased.

2 ) Have a world competition for BEV technology. An X-prize would encourage more startups.

3 ) Mandate car manufacturers to market at least one BEV along with their line up of cars, even if they have to be 're-sellers' and not the original maker. Subsidize BEV and other zero emissions cars only.

4 ) Have an X-prize for small (householder affordable) wind machines. These would obviously be 5 to 10 kw. Making these available to homeowners would reduce grid load tremendously. Do a similar project for solar.

5 ) Place a small wind turbine on every telephone / hydro pole in the country. The net power generated would be significant.

6 ) Subsidize the installation of wind farms and solar farms, river power, wave generating and geothermal energy production.

7 ) Convert coal and gas generating facilities to Hydrogen, then make the hydrogen when wind and solar are over producing, and use it during wind and solar shortages.

At this point we no longer need fossil fuels, we no longer have an acid rain problem, Global CO2 should begin decreasing, and our negative global footprint would be much reduced.
The question is, how fast can we make the switch to green energy?

I can’t understand the logic on this tread.

John Taylor: … 3 ) Mandate car manufacturers to market at least one BEV along with their line up of cars, even if they have to be 're-sellers' and not the original maker. Subsidize BEV and other zero emissions cars only

Due to its gigantic coal reserves, Pennsylvania produces a large faction of the electricity consumed on the east coast through coal fired generation. They have identified at least 100 years of CO2 sequestration capacity but won’t implement sequestration until the technology is proven.

You can convert all the cars on the east coast to electricity, but Pennsylvania will still be pumping out the same prodigious amount of CO2 plus 35% more to support these electric cars.

JC:…Then ban the burning of coal if at all possible…

It won’t happen…period.

JC: …If a total ban is not possible, then institute a punitive tax on coal

The only thing that will happen is the price to the customer for electricity (i.e. the electric car owner) will rise in proportion to the tax or the CO2 cap fine.

Guys, Look for the donut and not the hole!!!

Dr. Hansen is THE CO2 AGW hysterical scientist. He said 12 years ago that if CO2 wasn't coming down significantly to below 1990 levels, in 8 years, (4 years ago!), the human race was then DOOMED. It would be too late to do anything, about AGW.

So why is this guy now saying we need to do something, at all? He has already said it is 4 years too late.

Maybe he means it really isn't too late, at all; and he was exagerating for effect. So why believe him now, after a decade of stasis and cooling?

He was also the guy who predicted that the temperature would have climbed by a full degree and half in the past decade. Wrong once again.

I respect Dr. Hansen. He is a good scientist who has a blind spot with respect to AGW. He has also been well rewarded for his climate frightening act. As I recall, he was claimng censorship by NASA, even as he had his 45th press conference on NASA premises in some 30 odd days. Some Censorship.

At last count he has been awarded $2.12 million, as bonuses or "Prizes" for his work in Global Warming, in addition, to his excellent salary and perks. The remuneration for his hysteria act has certainly been pretty good.

Let's suppose that the probability of a worst case AGW scenario is proportional to the percentage of scientists that believe in the scary outcome. For example purposes, let's set the proportion of scientists that support a nasty AGW scenario (i.e., the probability of its occurrence) at 60%.

Next, let's define the worst case damages scenario from unmitigated AGW in economic terms, as an annual loss of property, lives, habitat, etc., [caused by drought, rising sea levels, wild fires, more intense storms and summer heat waves] and value these losses at something like 8% of world GDP by 2050. This may not be a bad worst case estimate, since China's economy is growing above that rate, and many analysts have argued that the environmental and health damages in China from criteria air and water pollution are now large enough to wipe out the benefits of much of their recent economic growth no matter what happens to global temperatures, sea level, etc.

Next we assess the economic cost to the Global Economy over the next 40 years of reducing GHG emissions by 80%. This is a difficult number to nail down, but the worst case scenario is more likely than not to be 3 or 4% of World GDP by 2050. However, this cost must be offset by the economic and health benefits of AGW mitigation measures that accrue regardless of whether they have any impact on global warming.

In other words, the direct economic and health benefits of higher energy efficiency, lower criteria pollutants, a more robust ecosystem, a reduced heat island effect in cities, greater energy security, fewer oil wars [$1 Trillion dollars/Iraq], and job creation from new sustainable industries, can be conservatively estimated to be between two and three percent of GDP, so that it only takes a fairly low probability of damaging AGW to justify an aggressive implementation of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions.

The bottom line is that from a policy perspective, the arguments of the AGW critiques can be ignored by politicians, and government and industry should implement policies that promote electrification of transportation, renewable generation of electricity, higher energy efficiency throughout the economy as an insurance policy against the risk of damaging AGW, but more importantly to provide a host of other economic and health benefits to the economy and consumers.

As a side bar, the critiques of AGW also need to contend with the fact that despite their many arguments, common sense supports the current scientific consensus on the issue. Methane, CO2, water vapor from cooling towers, oxides of nitrogen, chlorinated and fluorinated carbons are proven greenhouse gases emitted in significant quantities by human activities. The physics of these heat trapping gases if and when they build up in the atmosphere is indisputable.

In fact, NASA is considering future projects whereby greenhouse gases would be released in the Martian atmosphere to warm up that planet for human settlement. How odd that releases of these gases by humans would warm up Mars fairly quickly, (perhaps in as little as a decade) but the same humans that release these gases on earth have no impact on the planet?

The AGW critiques often site evidence from earth's history showing that in the ancient past global temperatures often began rising before a significant build up in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and therefore concluded that either higher temperatures cause higher greenhouse gas emissions [e.g., release of methane hydrates], or there is no causal relationship between the two variables. The latter argument is likely nonsense. The ancient earth experienced enormous episodes of volcanism, which often preceded or were concurrent with massive emissions of greenhouse gases. It should not be surprising to find evidence of either rising [Geothermal heat] or falling [Nuclear Winter] temperatures on the planet's surface and in the ancient oceans in the immediate aftermath of these massive volcanic episodes. However, what matters is what happened in the next 100,000 or million years after the volcanic episodes and release of the greenhouse gases, and on this score the evidence in fossil record of massive extinctions of species is very clear.

Nuclear power can quickly reduce gross emissions. This will, however, defund some pretty gross people.

Therefore it is very good news that net emissions can also be reduced, even while civil servants and angry pensioners continue to get their petro-pogey.

How motoring gains nuclear cachet

As one of the thoughtful 17,000 and now one of the 32,000 on the second Oregon Petition, the issue is no longer even up for debate. Several coleagues hwo were originally ambivalent, are now not even skeptical.

Modern Science of the 21st century, continually calibrates AGW and CO2 in particular, to have two orders of magnitude weaker effects, than the qualitative hypotheses in the 1960s proposed.

In short, MUCH Ado about Nothing!

I predict that the IPCC, which has already in AR4 layed the groundwork, will, in AR5, opt for at least one order of magnitude weakening, via re-adoption of the validity of Henry's Law of Solubility.

That IPCC upate is due for publishing around 2012, will say so explicitely as they promised in AR4 too.

The only ones scared by AGW are the new religious converts to GAIA, who get their Science from newspaper headlines, and a knothead who flunked one of the two Science courses he every took and got a D in the other, while making hundreds of millions of dollars,scaring the bejesus out of everyone.

Those two courses are actually a lot of Science, for a fellow majoring in giving "fire and brimstone" sermons at a Baptist Divinty School. Too Bad he didn't succeed at that either. He quit before flunking out, I understand.

Interesting article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501

Micropower delivers a sixth of total global electricity, a third of all new electricity and from a sixth to more than half of all electricity in 12 industrial countries (in the United States it's only 6 percent). In 2006, the global net capacity added by nuclear power was only 83 percent of that added by solar cells, 10 percent that of wind power and 3 percent that of micropower. China's distributed renewables grew to seven times its nuclear capacity and grew seven times faster. In 2007, the United States, China and Spain each added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. Wind power added 30 percent of new U.S. and 40 percent of EU capacity, because it's two to three times cheaper than new nuclear power.

The punch line: nuclear expansion buys two to 10 times less climate protection per dollar, far slower than its winning competitors. Spending a dollar on new nuclear power rather than on negawatts thus has a worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power.

Including factual back-up:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

What about living in a fact-based world for a change?

How many here are disgusted with the ad hominem attacks on all those who dare doubt dogma? "Scientific American" embarrassed itself greatly when it went after a former Greenpeace member and danish professor who did dare to honestly look at the DATA. Those that engage in it here equally embarrass themselves. Are there ANY pro-GWH voices willing to acknowledge that many knowledgeable people do not believe that the DATA supports GWH, and that they do so honestly and with conviction?

To paraphrase from another debate: Where are the moderate environmentalists?

@ Axil ... "I can’t understand the logic on this tread.

John Taylor: … 3 ) Mandate car manufacturers to market at least one BEV along with their line up of cars, even if they have to be 're-sellers' and not the original maker. Subsidize BEV and other zero emissions cars only "

What is to understand about the logic?
If GM were forced to sell ZAP cars, you can bet the Volt would be in production by next weekend.

Also, our governments currently subsidize the big three automakers in whopping amounts each year with little in return. A similar monetary investment in Electric cars would achieve production immediately.

"You can convert all the cars on the east coast to electricity, but Pennsylvania will still be pumping out the same prodigious amount of CO2 plus 35% more to support these electric cars."

Apparently you have a convenient reading disability. Go back and read my suggestions 4 through 7 ...

@ Stas Peterson. ~> Cleaning the grid is important for lots of reasons, our health and a secure source of power being two of the more obvious.
Environment studies by the oil industry are a lot like Health studies by Tobacco companies.

to hybrid fan:

you stated, ``"Scientific American" embarrassed itself greatly when it went after a former Greenpeace member``

You are referring to Patrick Moore? That guy from Vancouver, as I am, has been on a lifelong vendetta to discredit the environmental movement, after his emotional ousting from Greenpeace decades ago. He has psychological problems, constantly contradicting himself. I would much rather take scientific analysis from someone who is interested more in the facts than simply childishly discrediting his enemies.

to Esabre, the first post, I am wondering what planet the author of your article is on?

He states, ``Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth’s temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen.``

Sorry, not true. The relationship largely disappeared once the analysis was corrected for mistakes.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

And your author also states, ``Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.``

What!?!? I presume they`ve seen ``The Great Global Warming Swindle``, which featured this graph in an unsuccessful attempt to show that the CO2 vs. temperature relationship went the other way around, but instead only showed that there is a positive feedback relationship between the two (confirming the worst fear of climate scientists):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Even the AGW deniers don`t dispute this graph!! How can anyone look at that graph and say there is a ``lack of correlation between CO2 and past earth temperatures``?

Are they out of their mind, or have they just been corrupted by big oil money?

me, above

@ J. Taylor,

Here comes the cliche. Anybody who sees through the man-made global warming hoax has to be in the employ of Exxon. (All 32000). It is possible to notice the glaring problems with the global warming propoganda without being in the pocket of "big oil." I've never owned a share of oil company stock that I'm aware of. I'm on the waiting list to by a Phoenix EV and I also think Al Gore is full of...himself.

Also, it is funny how no one ever asks supporters of global warming hysteria about their connections to far left wing political organiaztions, or extremist environmental groups. For some reason only those who doubt man-made global warming are considered possible of having a hidden agenda.

Also, the idea that we should cripple a global economy with a massive massive tax on CO2, just to be on the safe side is absurd. Using the same logic, we should assume the recent cooling trend is the sign of a man-made ice age and we should start pumping CO2 as fast as we can make it. Sure I have no hard evidence but we can't take a chance so let's start making that CO2 now.

How many of those 32,000 were publishing climate scientists? I bet less that 1%. Stan Peterson demonstrates the point quite nicely. How long since you published a peer reviewed paper Stan??

“worst case AGW scenario” is easy to experience by anyone. Just next time you fly to spend a holiday in tropical paradise (Bali, for example, or Hawaii) think for a moment how horrific global warming will be.

Mark:

Are you traveling back in time?

Have you ever?

Have you ever published Stan??

To Andrey,
I hope you do not own property in Florida.

To Esabre,
please provide some evidence. So far, you have provided nothing but empty political arguments. The Earth`s climate does not operate on political arguments. When you provide something of substance I will consider your arguments.