Friday January 10, 2025
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Jun-02-2008 20:28printcomments

Scientists Continue to Sign Petition Opposed to Global Warming

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine says a "flood of Scientists oppose what they describe as, "Global Warming Alarmism."

A highly animated George Gilder speaks during an OISM presentation.
A highly animated George Gilder speaks during an OISM presentation. Gilder Telecosm Forum

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - As the Senate prepares for floor debate on global warming legislation, the list of scientist signatories to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's petition against global warming alarmism is growing by about 35 signatures every day, announced OISM's Art Robinson.

On May 19th 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, signed a petition that states, "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."

Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT's atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences.

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.

The petition's web site is petitionproject.org. You can visit their Website at: oism.org/

Source: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



FRED B. November 13, 2009 3:18 pm (Pacific time)

WHAT GARBAGE !! THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS FULL OF FLUFF and DOES NOT NAME ANY OF THE SUPPOSED 31,000 SCIENTISTS [ and WOW 9,000 have ph D's big whoop since they are nameless] SHow me some studies from independent research teams , documentation like the side has ACTUALLY DONE . this smells of the Conservative spin machine


JC March 26, 2009 4:07 pm (Pacific time)

ezduzit, The scientists are not saying global warming is not happening. It obviously is. They are saying that there is not convincing evidence that global warming is being caused by human activity. Global warming has been observed on Mars, Jupiter and other bodies in the Solar System. Global warming on Earth may or may not be man-made. There is no convincing evidence either way.


Andy June 8, 2008 8:19 am (Pacific time)

Let’s see here… The Earth is covered with water over 3/4 of its mass. The temperature of the Earth, as well as other planets in our solar system, had been on the increase until about 10 years ago. The Earth, based on the geological record provided by drilled core samples, has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout its history, and most of those periods in the geological record occurred before the industrial revolution. And finally, the Earth still is recovering from the little ice iage that occurred in the middle ages, and prior to the onset of the little ice age, the Earth was warmer that it is even today. It is absolute folly to plot a course of action based on a unsophisticated theory that man made CO2 causes global warming. In fact, there appears to be more evidence pointing to the inverse - that warming causes increases in levels of CO2. Yet much of the world, including our own Congress, is trying to enact legislation that will cost us trillions of dollars and have ZERO effect on CO2 levels. The Chicken Littles have taken over the world.


Albert Marnell June 8, 2008 8:16 am (Pacific time)

Global Warming is a Fraud. The purpose is to impose a global carbon tax to fund One World Government. I have said it a million times, "Cloak a tax with environmentalism and the slightly more educated fall for it." Notice that I use the word "slightly".


Polar Info June 7, 2008 9:52 am (Pacific time)

Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic. But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s. For those keeping score, that’s an almost 150 percent increase in two decades.


JB June 7, 2008 9:00 am (Pacific time)

ezduzit are you aware that the polar bear population has been steadily increasing for decades? That would mean that their habitat is not stressed, for if it was their population would be decreasing. If the latter does happen in the future, there could be many other causes (as in other species) like some type of disease or parasite. Also, last winter the northern ice pack froze faster that any past time on record. You ever watch Deadliest Catch on the Discovery channel? Follow the money is a good way to evaluate global warming claims. This will be a controversy for years to come, but if a tax/fee system is put into place, that system will be with us until hell freezes over.


ezduzit June 6, 2008 2:20 pm (Pacific time)

i would like to put all those scientists who say there is no global warming on a melting iceberg that is surrounded by hungry polar bears. swimming and glaring. how long before they change their tune?


Carol Ann June 6, 2008 11:49 am (Pacific time)

John C I just finished going to the link you provided and found it to be very informative. It seems that both sides have made good arguements but I lean towards being skeptical about Global Warming being manmade for the simple reason of past climate conditions. Developing new energy sources and reducing pollution is one positive aspect, but I do see that taxes and fees will hurt us, especially those with small incomes, and people like me on fixed incomes. Then of course what we do if legislation passes will really not mean anything because of countries like China and India. I just read where the ice pack in Antartica has been constantly getting deeper, so what's with that? Too little evidence that this warming, if it is actually happening outside of normal levels, is human caused.


Henry Ruark June 5, 2008 8:27 am (Pacific time)

To all: Be fully aware that Internet Wikipedia link also offers section covering those DEMANDING action to remediate continuing dollar-raids on our environment. And also that W-pedia is written, edited, by joint efforts of many --ie. by public contribution of content-- overseen by W-people and always open to change and addition. (See numerous notes in many sections.) Generally reliable, which is why I use it; but also usually has TWO or more


John C June 5, 2008 7:58 am (Pacific time)

Sofia and other interested people, the below link will allow another viewpoint from scientists, many who specialize in climate change, past and present. Please be aware that even academics like geologists specialize in climate. Also, since so much money and potential revenue is involved in this matter, there will be very sophisticated websites supporting both sides of this controversey. My suggestion is to look at the historical record written by the people experiencing the climate of their time to get a better idea of climate change. The scientists on the below link have much better evidence than those who say global warming was caused by humans, if it is actually even happening outside of normal-change parameters. Just cut and paste the link to your browser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


Sofia Gidlund June 4, 2008 4:03 pm (Pacific time)

The "scientists" referred to on this petition includes names of random celebrities. Anyone can sign this online petition and there's no control process of who can be called a scientist. The man who wrote the paper the petition refers to is a biochemist and has no training in climate science. It's important to check sources before just blindly believing the right-wing extremists. Double check at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine


Kyle June 4, 2008 2:30 pm (Pacific time)

The group of scientist's referenced in this article are just offering a different perspective. It seems that the people who get alarmed about different viewpoints, regardless of the topic, do not like to debate using available "real" facts. More and more people are coming around and challenging the notion that man caused global warming, but can we even do anything about it if we did? The climatic record of this planet (not Krypton by the way) shows a constant pattern of ebbing and flowing of climatic conditions. This senate bill is nothing more than a device to not only raise revenue, but it will backfire and cause considerable harm. Since we have experienced scientists on both sides of the issue, I say follow the money! Who is getting all the grant money? Hint: It's not the scientists referenced in this article, so who you gonna believe?


Henry Ruark June 4, 2008 10:44 am (Pacific time)

To all: Distortion still "name of game" in this issue/problem, as for so much else: "See with own eyes": Conservative Spin Still Shaping Coverage of Global Warming By Bill Scher Created 06/03/2008 - 1:32pm Summary: As the Senate considers the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill this week, we're finally seeing some media coverage of the policy debate. Sadly, but predictably, we're still seeing conservative spin infect the coverage. As the Senate considers the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill [1] this week, we're finally seeing some media coverage of the policy debate. Sadly, but predictably, we're still seeing conservative spin infect the coverage. in particular, news outlets are playing up distortions about what the cost of action would be to consumers. A report on NPR today [2] produced a Fox-style "fair and balanced" report, pairing arguments from competing organizations like the environmental Natural Resources Defense Council and the anti-environment right-wing front group [3] the National Association of Manufacturers." (From:editor@tompaine.com)


Henry Ruark June 4, 2008 7:17 am (Pacific time)

Glen et al: Some always want to seek for that Superman cape, and try t on, Glen. But this time, it just ain't gonna fly...!!


Glen June 3, 2008 8:00 pm (Pacific time)

Comic fans: this reminds me of the Council of Krypton arguing with Jo-El that his calculations of an imminent planetary explosion were laughable. He was able to send his son to Earth just as his planet blew. Where will we send our children when our planet becomes unlivable?


Henry Ruark June 3, 2008 6:33 pm (Pacific time)

Kyle, Ayers et al: Right on the money, Kyle --do not believe I stated debate at end, only that huge majority of major scientists now back facts-and-meaning which surely shows, for all reasonable purposes, that warming is occurring for the reasons majority supports. There are always dissidents, even in such factual matters as this, for many reasons, some psychological, some political, some even tied to dollars-at-stake...and not all really matters of belief or understandings involved. Ther ARE certain interests for whom heavy money-stakes are at risk, probably much higher for the anti/s than for the pro-warming group. Debate may continue right up until final spasms of Earth are felt; but that continued dissent will do little to remediate what we have done to an environment once believed to be "endless". Even McCain, after trip in which he "saw with own eyes" that ice-flow in Bering Sea, I believe, had retreated some 25 miles...gotta check but that's what memory tells me. Thank both of you for your well-toned participation.


Kyle June 3, 2008 5:52 pm (Pacific time)

From my observations Henry does not challenge facts about anything, unless you fail to empirically demonstrate those facts in a reasonable way. No doubt the global warming advocates are being challenged by a growing numer in the scientific community. The debate will be renewed, fortunately for us masses.


Ayers Weatherman June 2, 2008 9:24 pm (Pacific time)

I don't understand, I thought Henry Ruark said all debate was over? So, I wonder what Copernicus is thinking about when he hears those who want to stifle debate?

[Return to Top]
©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for June 1, 2008 | Articles for June 2, 2008 | Articles for June 3, 2008
googlec507860f6901db00.html

Support
Salem-News.com:



Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.