Ask Rickety: What is the Global Warming Petition Project?

East lake near Wuhan University

Global warming?

What is the Global Warming Petition Project?

It is a petition signed by 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with PhDs. It can be found at the Petition Project website.

What is the purpose of the petition?

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.

What does the petition say?

The entire petition is as follows:

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.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

What are the qualifications of the signatories?

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.

Who finances the Petition Project?

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

Are all the petition signatories scientists?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as it was discovered.

Is there any evidence that global warming is not harmful?

A twelve page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. The factual information cited in the article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. The article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

What does this review say?

The review is called Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and its abstract reads:

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

What do you make of all this, Rickety?

With over 30,000 signatories the petition deserves a decent review. Even if only a quarter of the signatories are bona fide scientists that is still an impressive number. This to me confirms what I have thought for years, that is, the jury is still out on the effect of hydrocarbon use on the environment. In the review, mention is made of the effect of the sun on temperature which one cannot easily dismiss.

Many people seem to have made their minds up based upon the popular fads of the day. I think it better to keep an open mind and to continue scientific research. Keep the politics out of the debate and examine all scientific research. See also the report of another 650 dissenting scientists.

Photo Credit: wumai on Flickr

Related Articles

Methods designed to reduce climate change questioned Address of a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member.
Rickety signature

Comments

  1. Digitale Signatur says:

    Nice project, I like the purpose. Global warming is really dangerous. Hope there would be many people to make that kind of project to inform all people what to avoid to prevent global warming to happen.

  2. This global warming petition may be an important movement toward changing the environmental situation right now. This is important for all of us. I would like to make sure that auto companies are focusing on designing more fuel efficient vehicles.

  3. Would you say then, that there is some economic influence on the study, and not just simply scientific research? As mentioned: “rationing of energy sources…will cause great economic harm.”

  4. Jerry, When the economics works then fuel efficiency will follow. Personally, I always buy a V6, I care more about having a car with a little extra power for overtaking and acceleration. I never bought into earth worship and “saving” the world.

  5. Derek, Yes, the concern seems to be that economies will suffer by rationing energy. Also they do not want the U.N. in charge of energy rationing when the science, in their opinion, has not been fully proven. The petition founders point out that no money for the project was accepted from energy interests.

  6. Here’s some interesting news on global warming. On January 2, 2009, the EPA made a final rule to the Code of Federal Regulations concerning acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    40 CFR Part 82
    [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-8758-9]RIN 2060-AG12

    Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 23 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION: Determination of Acceptability.

    SUMMARY: This Determination of Acceptability expands the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The determinations concern new substitutes for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning, fire suppression and explosion protection, and foam blowing sectors.

    DATES: Effective January 2, 2009.

    This section presents EPA’s most recent acceptable listing decisions for substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning, fire suppression and explosion protection, and foam blowing sectors. For copies of the full list of ODS substitutes in all industrial sectors, visit EPA’s Ozone Depletion Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html

  7. Cindy, What does this effectively mean?

  8. Cindy Findley says:

    Good question. Basically, the EPA has expanded their list of acceptable substitutes.

    “Substitutes are reviewed on the basis of ozone depletion potential, global warming potential, toxicity, flammability, and exposure potential as described in the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044; 967K). Lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes are updated several times each year.”

    taken from http://www.cyberregs.com/

  9. Cindy, That is good news if there are more acceptable substitutes. Thanks for the information. I have another question (off topic): Does Citation Technologies help in the creation of regulatory documents (not the content but the format and organization) or do they help others understand the existing regulations? I seems like it is the former, after I read your “about” page.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Dear Rickety,

    Citation Technologies core competency is managing and displaying regulatory documents. We work with all the SDOs like ANSI, ASTM, ICC, NSRonline, etc. So in answer to your question, we do the format and organization. We do not explain the regulations, however our partners do.

    regards, Cindy
    http://www.CyberRegs.com

  11. Cindy Findley says:

    Dear Rickety,

    Citation Technologies prepares and displays regulatory documents in a format that increases productivity, change management, and collaboration. Our flagship product is called CyberRegs. It is primarily for the EHS industry. We do not break the regulations down to layman’s terms but our partners do. We display most of the major SDOs’ content like ASNI, ASTM, ICC, NSRonline, etc.

    thanks, Cindy
    http://www.CyberRegs.com

  12. Sign me up as a ‘doubter’ or what is it they are pasting us with now, ‘denier’.

    Summing the whole thing up, I remember an article in NATURE about 1998 that the editor himself wrote. He was warning the scientific community of this global warming movement and how politics and propaganda had taken control of a theory and was turning it into policy tool. It’s been too long to remember which article, but the point was that even back then the pressure our politicians were putting on institutional scientists was considerable.

    It’s time to get politics out of science and progressives out of politics.

  13. BigMG,

    Not only has it (global warming) been used as a policy tool, but as an economic one as well. Don’t forget that capitalism fuels the fire in some ways, too.

    • Derek,
      When you say that global warming has been used as an economic tool do you mean that the threat of global warming promotes economic activity? For example, new appliances that use less power; forcing cars off the road that do not meet emissions (meaning new cars have to be made to replace them); and advancing green projects before their economically viable time? Or do you mean something else?

  14. That is exactly what I mean. It is also important to remember that there are political/economic propaganda working against the theory in just as many ways as there are for it.

  15. Derek,
    Ultimately what we want to do is to look at the truth, as near as we can get to it. In conversations with a number of friends I find that many of them have already installed CFLs in their homes. They were all looking to reduce their energy bill and not because they believe it will reduce global warming.

  16. prabin pahadi says:

    sir i am from nepal. i am very much worried about global warming. our country is poor and polluted. plastics are used maximum. i just want to contribute my life in the project of global warming. i just want to control global warming. can u help me sir???

  17. Hello would you mind letting me know which hosting company you’re using? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different web browsers and I must say this blog loads
    a lot faster then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider
    at a fair price? Kudos, I appreciate it!

Speak Your Mind