The Global Warming Petition Project

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, 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.

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.

So, the next time some Global Warming Alarmist tells you that you are an idiot because the "science is settled", point them to this site and ask them if 31,487 reputable American scientists are idiots too.


  1. Brian2:06 PM

    I'm somewhat disappointed that a great opportunity to peer into the minds of so many credible parties was squandered on hyperbolic statements. What choice does one have when presented with a decision about "settled science" and certain catastrophic consequences than to respond in the negative? Though the results certainly refute the silly assertion that all but a statistically insignificant group of outliers could be of an absolute mind on this issue (a conclusion of dubious importance), I would have found much more value in a survey-style questionnaire where the respondents are asked to rank several statements on scales of both certainty and importance. We need a bit more scientific method and a bit less R.J. Reynolds style "tobacco hasn't been 100% proven to cause cancer" argumentum ad misericordiam.

  2. @Brian You might want to go back and read the supporting paper that was provided along with the petition card. Nobody held a gun to the heads of these eminent scientists.

  3. Brian9:03 AM

    Pete, I believe you've missed my point. They put a lot of energy into obtaining an answer to an unnecessarily specific question. An opportunity was missed.

  4. After reading the paper, I googled around a bit on this topic (aka "the oregon project"). It's been suggested that the paper was sponsored by Big Oil and compiled by three climate change deniers who have questionable formal training, that the paper was never formally peer reviewed, and that only .5% of the signers actually have formal expertise in relevant fields (while all related, it's a stretch to say a physicist, biologist, mathematician or astronomer is a formal expert).

    I have no formal training in the atmospheric sciences so I'm at a disadvantage to authoritatively weigh the evidence. It's pretty clear there is no universal agreement between authorities. I have no doubt that, as with every issue, there is a non-zero percentage of myopic fanaticism on both sides and that confirmation bias runs rampant.

  5. @Brian,
    Of course you found information like what you describe. The minute good science is practiced, the IPCC drones go into attack mode. They even have an entire web site devoted to debunking every possible alternative view. Everybody suffers from confirmation bias in some way. The best we can do is be open minded.

  6. Brian4:19 PM

    > The best we can do is be open minded.

    Could not agree more. And while I find it an analog to the current political arena, the comment about the 'drones going into attack mode' is an interesting one. I don't see that strategy as any less endemic to either side even if one side is more proficient at scorched earth policy (pun fully intended).

    Thanks for the interesting discussion (I always prefer the C# stuff but definitely appreciate the variety).

  7. What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Carl Sagan

  8. Brian8:47 PM

    Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions. -Evan Esar


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ASP.NET: Loss of Session / Cookies with Frames

FIREFOX / IE Word-Wrap, Word-Break, TABLES FIX