The Global Warming Petition Project

By


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.

Peter has been active on the C# and other MS newsgroups, has had samples at gotdotnet.com (now codegallery.com) that have been downloaded over 56,000 times, and has written numerous articles for eggheadcafe.com, for which he is a co-founder, and MSDNAA sites. He has also been a technical reviewer on books from Prentice Hall, Manning and other publishers. Peter was a Microsoft MVP for 10 years. Peter was born and raised in New York City, and after a stint as a jazz musician playing contrabass with the Robert Hunt Trio, migrated to sunny Florida, where he was hired as a rookie Financial Consultant at Merrill Lynch in Orlando, specializing in Corporate Services. It was at Merrill that Peter realized computers and technology were his forte. He spent his last few years at Merrill developing real – time computerized trading and and stock charting program using advanced technical analysis indicators, some of which are his own inventions. In 1997, he moved on to architect and serve as lead developer on a number of innovative web-based and middleware solutions for the healthcare and financial services industry.

Comments

  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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. peterbromberg2:12 PM

    @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.

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian10:01 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. peterbromberg10:14 AM

    @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.

    ReplyDelete
  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).

    ReplyDelete
  7. peterbromberg7:20 PM

    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

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brian8:47 PM

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

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Some observations on Script Callbacks, "AJAX", "ATLAS" "AHAB" and where it's all going.

By
I've taken a more than cursory interest in the whole Remote Scripting (.NET species) vs. AJAX and now ATLAS discussion, mostly because I started using Remote Scripting since Microsoft first released it, and because I continued to refine it after seeing Brent Ashley's excellent work with JSRS, which was one of the first "real" cross-browser solutions back in 2000 (that's the turn of the Century for you history buffs). Now Bertrand Leroy, a Microsoft guy whose work I like , has authored some very interesting ASP.NET 2.0 script callback stuff that he points to on his blog, and he is obviously (at least, to me he is) involved quite heavily in the development of this new ATLAS infrastructure that they'll preview at PDC. Leroy's most recent post brings to the surface what I agree are the major differences between the "AJAX a - la .NET" approach as popularized by Michael Swartz with his AJAX.NET library, and Leroy's RefreshPanel, the ASP.NET 2.0 b...
Read more

IE7 - Vista: "Internet Explorer has stopped Working"

By
Image
This one was a bitch. All of a sudden for no reason at all, out of the blue, I get this dialog "internet Explorer has stopped working". I didn't install any new software, crap- I didn't do anything! So here I am using FIREFART to go on the internet and find out what to do! Damn! Good thing I've got the sucker on the same machine (I'm not "anti-Firefox", i just don't use it that much except to check my page renderings). The Fix The fix (at least for me): 1) Go into Control Panel, and choose "Internet Options". 2) Under the "Advanced" tab, press the "RESET" button at the lower right: Don't ask me why this happens, or why the fix works. That's a BUG, D00D - I don't care how you slice it!
Read more

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

By
One of the most annoying things a developer (who would normally delight in writing code, not futzing with markup) can have is getting rendering issues between different browsers. The two biggest players are of course Internet Exploder and Firefart (as I lovingly like to refer to each). In most cases that's going to take care of 98 percent of your total site traffic. IE has had a proprietary "word-break" style attribute for a long time, and this made it into the CSS 3.0 spec. But that doesn't necessarily help you with Firefox right now. Firefox literally - (and I consider this completely idiotic, since it's been in their bug database for FIVE YEARS) does not have a reliable CSS style element to force table cell content to break in the middle of a word in order to stop the content from expanding your table / div off the page or over other content on the page. Here's a partial fix, which will work for most tables and browsers. The style declaration (I call it m...
Read more

System.Web.Caching.Cache, HttpRuntime.Cache, and IIS Recycles

By
Recently I chimed in on a newsgroup thread to an OP (Original Poster) who was questioning why he was losing Cache items. This individual would load a dataset from the Cache object into a local object to use to perform processing. He had been using httpcontext.current.cache and noticed that sometimes he was not able to get the dataset out of the cache. He tried switching to HttpRuntime.Cache and it seemed to help. The OP claimed that the application is under heavy hits, and once or twice every month he would see this error. He wanted to know why does the HttpContext.Current.Cache call work sometimes, while some other times does not. A couple of posters replied, one of whom is a respected MVP who usually makes very astute, high-quality posts. He posted," The cache is only valid during the life of the request. how is you[sic] code using the cache?" Somebody else (also pretty astute, usually) responded, "Cache is valid during lifetime of application not request.....". W...
Read more

FIX: Requested Registry Access is not allowed (Visual Studio 2008)

By
Symptom: in Visual Studio 2008, you attempt to add a new WebContentForm and associate it with a MasterPage. You receive an error dialog "Requested Reqistry Access is not allowed". Don't ask me what caused this; I'm guessing that the registry keys involved had their access denied due to removal of a previous version of Visual Studio, leaving the new guy (Visual Studio 2008) in the lurch. Here's the fix: Download "subinacl" here . This is a command-line tool that enables administrators to obtain security information about files, registry keys, and services, and transfer this information from user to user, from local or global group to group, and from domain to domain. After installing subinacl.exe (it will be in the C:\Program Files\Windows Resource Kits\Tools folder.), drop to a command prompt and run the following batch file, which you have saved in the same folder with the filename "FIX.bat": subinacl /subkeyreg HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\VisualStudi...
Read more