Each time a challenge comes from a sceptic I find myself scouting around for the real science and the critical thinking on the subject. This often sends me into a spiral of fascinating research as nuggets come to light. I thought I'd share what I found for each of the 'classics'. Here is a response to the "We are being systematically lied to in order to provide a basis for more taxation. If you have any doubts visit www.petitionproject.org" challenge.......

The argument goes something like this - if global warming is supposed to be a 'settled' science then how come 31,486 American scientists disagree? ref; http:www.petitionproject.org

The website claims "The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis."

I just love statistics. I downloaded all the data on what these 'scientists' are qualified in. The website states 'All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change "controversy". (my "'s)

What I found is shown on the attached graphs. Of all the signatories (I can't call them scientists, I have a BSc but couldn't possibly classify myself as a scientist) only 2% have a qualification in atmospheric sciences, 60% of whom studied meteorology, 10% astronomy and only 7% studied climatology (or 39 people in total!) In fact the vast majority have general engineering degrees or qualified in physics, chemistry or medicine. Oh, so not generally climate scientists then, nor scientists!

Data from the petitionproject stats

Image by Katy Duke

Elsewhere on the website you can read " The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded. In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans.... " and that the United Nations objective is "building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy". !

erm, actually ... The Purposes of the United Nations are:

  1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

and that regarding climate change it formed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where 192 countries around the world have joined an international treaty that sets general goals and rules for confronting climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Convention has the goal of preventing "dangerous" human interference with the climate system.

Moreover the author of the covering letter to the petition was Professor Frederick Seitz;
Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their research program. In a discussion of the dangers of secondary inhalation of tobacco smoke, he concluded "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances." Philip Morris attorney Alexander Holtzman described Seitz in a 1989 internal memo as "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."
Seitz questioned whether global warming is anthropogenic. He supported the position of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) on global warming and in an open letter invited scientists to sign the OISM's global warming petition. Seitz also signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. Critics say he used the same "uncertainty" tactic to challenge global warning that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds to confuse the cancer/smoking link debate. (Wikepedia)

 Notes on Seitz' work on health studies funded by the tobacco industry and on global warming for Exxon Mobil front organizations.

petiton data 1

Image by Katy Duke

 

 

petition data 2

Image by Katy Duke

For more information on the real science you can find information on the IPCC here. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the

United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) and the

World Meteorological Organization

(WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

 

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.

 

 

 

blog comments powered by Disqus