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.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
William Himchak says
This is not a complete article that I can use in challenging my Liberal friends. It needs the authentic evidence that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science signed the petition. Where is the signatory list?
Note: The list, broken out by state, is here: http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php
tokenny says
Please don’t use this list your Liberal friends will blow you out of the water. You won’t have a chance on many grounds.
Note: Tokenny is probably correct here, you can’t argue data and facts when people are clouded by emotion. As Ron White says, “you can’t fix some things.”
Paul Plante says
First off, whether you dropped out of the fifth grade when you were 16 and could legally quit school, or whether you have five or six different Ph.D’s in all kinds of subjects, there is nothing new here with respect to the “science,” which goes back to the early 1800s, if not earlier, as we can clearly see from this blog entry from the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled “I’m a Scientist and Greta Thunberg’s Speech to Congress Inspires Me” by Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist, on September 20, 2019, to wit:
I was honored to meet Greta Thunberg, the 16-year old climate activist who started weekly climate strikes and the hashtag #FridaysForFuture, which have in turn inspired many young people to strike in their hometowns.
Moments before Greta’s powerful speech to members of Congress on September 18, 2019 in the largest room on Capitol Hill, the Ways and Means Committee room, she was preparing in a small room.
Those of us with her stood a little away so that she might think about the words she was about to share with the world.
Her father, Svante Thunberg, deftly encouraged us to speak in low tones while still engaging in friendly conversation.
I remarked to him that I admired his first name because I appreciate that he shares it with the Swedish scientist and Nobel laureate in chemistry, Svante Arrhenius, who made noteworthy contributions in climate science by pointing out how different levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would affect Earth’s climate (the so-called “greenhouse effect”).
Svante Thunberg smiled and replied that he grew up knowing that he was related to, and named after, the Nobel laureate.
However, until recently no one in Greta’s family quite understood exactly what Arrhenius was honored for.
Mr. Thunberg said he himself did not truly appreciate it until Greta started to seriously learn more about climate change.
With a twinkle in his eye and mirthful irony he posited this as a kind of an indicator that even Arrhenius’s own descendants were not sufficiently aware of the climate science — which likely means this applies to most people.
end quotes
And while the slick Svante Thunberg, who reminds me a lot of William Avery “Devil Bill” Rockefeller Sr., a famous American con-artist who went by the alias of Dr. William Levingston, and his little daughter Greta might be totally ignorant of who Svante Arrhenius is, the fact is that they are a minority, which takes us back to that blog entry, as follows:
Greta is distantly related to Svante Arrhenius.
Full circle: we have now received two warnings from Swedish thinkers, one from the 19th century and one from the 21st century.
end quotes
Except that is absolute horse****, as I am quite familiar as an engineer with what Arrhenius actually said about carbonic acid because he wrote it down so we wouldn’t have to guess at it all these years later, and to make that idiotic statement that Arrhenius gave us a warning, that so-called “senior climate scientist” who wrote that blog entry is showing the world her ignorance, which continues as follows, to wit:
Svante Arrhenius put forth a theory that scientists have been building and expanding ever since, “standing on the shoulders of giants” as the saying goes.
Now in this century, Greta Thunberg’s clarion call to leaders in Sweden has grown louder as she continues to speak with leaders around the world.
end quotes
Except those so-called “climate scientists” are not “building” on the theory put forth by Arrhenius – they are perverting what Arrhenius wrote, which is as follows:
“WORLDS IN THE MAKING – THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE” BY SVANTE ARRHENIUS, DIRECTOR OF THE PHYSICO-CHEMICAL NOBEL INSTITUTE, STOCKHOLM; TRANSLATED BY DR. H. BORNS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
Published March, 1908.
Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa?
There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension.
The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree.
Volcanism, whose devastations on Krakatoa (1883) and Martinique (1902) have been terrible in late years, appears to be growing more intense.
It is probable, therefore, that the percentage of carbonic acid increases at a rapid rate.
Hence the carbonic acid percentage has been increasing of late.
We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days.
We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil.
By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.
end quotes
That is what Arrhenius actually said, and it is the exact opposite of the horse**** these hysteria-mongering “climate scientists” like this Brenda Ekwurzel are spreading, along with Svante Thunberg and his little daughter Greta, neither of whom has a clue as to what they are on about.
And that is where this discussion about scientists signing petitions really has to start – with what Arrhenius actually said, because any subsequent “science” which runs counter to the position of Arrhenius that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is essential to maintaining life as we know it on earth is dead wrong.
As to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, Arrhenius continued as follows:
Fourier and Pouillet now thought that the atmosphere of our earth should be endowed with properties resembling those of glass, as regards permeability of heat.
Tyndall later proved this assumption to be correct.
The chief invisible constitutents of the air which participate in this effect are water vapor, which is always found in a certain quantity in the air, and carbonic acid, also ozone and hydrocarbons.
Of late, however, we have been supplied with very careful observations on the permeability to heat of carbonic acid and of water vapor.
With the help of these data I have calculated that if the atmosphere were deprived of all its carbonic acid of which it contains only 0.03 per cent, by volume the temperature of the earth’s surface would fall by about 21 degrees C.
This lowering of the temperature would diminish the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and would cause a further almost equally strong fall of temperature.
If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, (296 ppm) the temperature would fall by about 4 degrees C; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8 degrees C.
On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4 degrees C; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8 degrees C.
Further, a diminution of the carbonic acid percentage would accentuate the temperature differences between the different portions of the earth, while an increase in this percentage would tend to equalize the temperature.
The question, however, is whether any such temperature fluctuations have really been observed on the surface of the earth.
The geologists would answer: yes.
Our historical era was preceded by a period in which the mean temperature was by 2 degrees C (3.6 F.) higher than at present.
We recognize this from the former distribution of the ordinary hazel-nut and of the water-nut (Trapanalans).
Fossil nuts of these two species have been found in localities where the plants could not thrive in the present climate.
This age, again, was preceded by an age which, we are pretty certain, drove the inhabitants of northern Europe from their old abodes.
The glacial age must have been divided into several periods, alternating with intervals of milder climates, the so-called inter-glacial periods.
The space of time which is characterized by these glacial periods, when the temperature according to measurements based upon the study of the spreading of glaciers in the Alps must have been about 5 degrees C (8 F.) lower than now, has been estimated by geologists at not less than 100,000 years.
This epoch was preceded by a warmer age, in which the temperature, to judge from fossilized plants of those days, must at times have been by 8 or 9 degrees C (14 or 16 F.) higher than at present, and, moreover, much more uniformly distributed over the whole earth (Eocene).
Pronounced fluctuations of this kind in the climate have also occurred in former geological periods.
Are we now justified in supposing that the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air has varied to an extent sufficient to account for the temperature changes?
This question has been answered in the affirmative by Hogbom, and, in later times, by Stevenson.
The actual percentage of carbonic acid in the air is so insignificant that the annual combustion of coal, which has now (1904) risen to about 900 million tons and is rapidly increasing, carries about one-seven-hundredth part of its percentage of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.
That would imply that there is no real stability in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air, which is probably subject to considerable fluctuations in the course of time.
end quotes
So, if we were to do what the IPCC crowd wants, and cut our CO2 emissions to zero by 2030, what we can expect, since the plants growing on earth will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they do now, is a period of rapid cooling.
Could we survive that rapid cooling in terms of food production?
Stay tuned.
Paul Plante says
With respect to tokenny’s liberals, to make things incandescently clear here with regard to the “consensus” horse****, anyone calling themselves a “scientist” who is supporting NOAA chief scientist Ko Barrett and the IPCC global climate crowd are supporting someone who has openly put forth a hysterical and sensationalist position about “dire consequences” from climate change that are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, so that by making such wild and unsupported claims in the mainstream media, NOAA chief scientist Ko Barrett engaged in fraud and deception and by doing so, engaged in dishonest conduct, period.
So if anyone is for Ko Barrett and the IPCC, including tokenny’s liberals, that is what they are for – fraud, dishonesty, and deception and contrived science, also known as data manipulation, which is the process in which scientific data is either forged, or in this case, blatantly presented in an unprofessional way to sow panic in the public.
Paul Plante says
So that we have some type of rational basis in here for considering what these various “scientists” are either for or against in here with respect to this IPCC climate crisis crowd and its “findings,” which are political in nature, not scientific, these are the highlights from the latest IPCC horse**** report, courtesy of this Ko Barrett and NOAA from the NOAA puff-piece or propaganda piece entitled “Talking with IPCC Vice-chair Ko Barrett: On climate change and consensus building” by Tom Di Liberto on November 6, 2018, to wit:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
This report investigates the impact that 1.5°C of global warming will have on the people, plants and animals that call Earth home and the pathways to limiting warming.
The report was a request in the Paris Agreement, driven by the concerns of many countries, especially in the Pacific Ocean, who could feel disproportionate impacts from warming below the 2°C threshold the climate negotiations have established as a target.
In the report, the IPCC concluded that Earth has already warmed approximately 1°C compared to pre-industrial times, and if warming continues at its current pace, we will reach 1.5°C of warming within 1-3 decades (2030-2052).
Limiting warming to 1.5°C is not impossible but would require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
Additionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
To learn more about this report and the process that created it, I talked with Ko Barrett, a Vice Chair of the IPCC, based in the U.S.
Ms. Barrett, who is also Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, has been working on climate for over two decades, representing the United States as a climate negotiator, including almost a decade as the lead U.S. negotiator on adaptation.
Now in her capacity as Vice Chair of the IPCC, she has helped bring this report together, convening groups to bring about consensus.
Highlights:
• If warming continues at its current pace, we will reach 1.5°C of global warming within 1-3 decades.
• Limiting warming to 1.5°C is not impossible but would require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
• Limiting warming can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like eradicating poverty.
end quotes
I’d like to request that Mr. tokenny have his liberal friends bring their liberal scientists who are staunch supporters of this IPCC horse**** above here into this discussion to explain to us the “science” that supports the IPCC finding that “limiting warming can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like eradicating poverty.”
Can the scientists of Mr. tokenny’s friends support that assertion with even a shred of evidence?
There is my essential existential question of the morning to get this new day off to a roll.