Same crap, different year, different number. Arthur Robinson and co. strike again. At first, it was the 19,000 signatories for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), and now they’ve jacked the number up to over 31,000 “scientists” who signed a petition against the AGW consensus. The phone book is cute, but personally I’d prefer one person with real science and data, as opposed to 31,000 people supporting scientific hogwash. The science in their “peer-reviewed” publication is easy enough to invalidate, and carries its share of looking at regional temperature (as opposed to global), throwing up strawman attacks (no one expects global temperatures to follow hydrocarbon emissions), and refuting themselves in the process (like their solar radiative forcing graph, which would be converted into a temperature anomaly that is negligible). But, surely Chris doesn’t know more than all of these 31,000 scientists, right? Well I did a quick survery of these “scientists” and report as follows:
Of 60 samples (including 54 phD’s), there were a grand total of zero publications behind the sampled signatories that were relevant to climate or climate change. None has specific background in meteorology, climatology, oceanography, etc and just two with a geology background (including one who is now deceased).
My subsample was the first 10 people of the petition, and the first two of each subsequent letter (ten from A, two from B, two from C…two from Z). I actually did a bit of cherry picking, but only to help out there side a bit more, so starting from “B,” I chose the first two people who were listed as phD’s. I looked at their publication records by the criteria of typing their name in the “search by author” box in Google Scholar. So, here we go
A
1) Earl M.J. Aagaard – Professor of Biology
Research Interests:
Intelligent design (we’re off to a great start), Relation of Man to his environment
No publications relevant to climate
2) Charles W. Aami
Can’t find him anywhere on google, with a few different terms.
Charles W. Aami
“Charles W. Aami”
“Charles Aami”
Apparently no publications, nor anything relevant to climate
3) Roger L. Aamodt
Looks like someone from the National Cancer Institute
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
4) Wilbur A. Aanes
Veterinary /Large Animal Surgery
No publications relevant to climate change
5) Robert Aaron (now deceased)
Electrical Engineer/Telecommunications
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
6) Ralph F. Abate
in the area of bridge design, and also runs student bridge contests (which I’m sure allows him to make judgments on the errors in the scientific community on climate change)
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
7) Hamed K. Abbas
Research Plant Pathologist, food safety
No publications relevant to climate
8, Paul Abbett
Can’t find much on google, with a couple of search terms
“Paul Abbett”
Paul Abbett AND climate
No publications relevant to climate
9) Wyatt E. Abbitt III
Same thing,
and zero publications
10) Ursula K. Abbott
In Avian Wildlife/Avian Genetics
No publications relevant to climate
Remember, everyone from here on out has (or should have) phD’s.
B
1) Dirk Den Baars
Looks like the guy is now deceased for several years, but specialized in exploration and mining of copper, precious metals, and industrial minerals, from here and here. Looks like he has some interesting World War 2 stories though.
No publications relevant to climate
2) Ronald R. Bach
Medical (health) Field / Oncology
No publications relevant to climate
C
3) Fernando Cadena- Civil Engineering
No publications relevant to climate
4) Fernando Cadena, C (different guy I suppose)
Inventor , and looks like he is looking to remove arsenic from water
No relevant publications to climate
D
5) Hugo C. da Silva
There is a Hugo C Da Silva Jr who recently graduated in nuclear engineering. But there is no “Jr.” in the petition, so it could be Hugo C. da Silva the sales associate/real estate guy. Doesn’t look like a phD though, but no matter which guy you want, no publications on climate
6) John W. Dabbs
Another strange search…I’ll let you take your pick.
You can have John W. Dabbs the guy who died in 1919, the family genealogy guy , or the medical guy. The last guy might be the more impressive choice (Though that is an M.D., not a phD) but regardless, none of them have any publications on climate
E
7) Joseph Jackson Eachus-
Couldn’t find much , but I think some poor guy is trying to get some information on him on one of them ancestry sites. In any case, no publications relevant to climate
8, Robert John Eagan
Not a lot of luck either, a search search with just his name gave no results- Played around with the name a bit (Robert J. Eagan) and I found a guy in nuclear power, a guy for Southwestern Electrical cooperative and one lawyer. I found no phD’s, but I also found no publications in climate
F
9) Michael William Fabian
Can’t find him, but he might be involved in OSU’s biological department. No publications relevant to climate
10) Thomas John Fabish
Looks like a bandconductor. The band guy seems to be the more famous one, but if you don’t like him, there is the guy from the Paint and Coating Resource Center. No publications in climate.
G
11) Steven Alexander Gaal- Involved in the mathematics geneaology project. Looks like a guy from back in the 1940’s, and no publications relevant to climate
12) P. S. Gaal
Looks like the guy is involved in the advancement of the transport properties of materials. Deals with thermal conductivity in materials, thermal diffusivity, etc. No publications relevant to climate
H
13) Gottfried Haacke
Looks like an inventor. Has patents on narrow band radiation films. Perhaps worked on windows that absorbed solar heat (on greenhouses for instance). No publications relevant to climate
14) Ronald L. Haaland
In agronomy and deals with plants/soil. Or he could be a real estate agent. No publications relevant to climate
I
15) Michael John Iatropoulos
Department of Pathology, expertise in toxicology. No publications relevant to climate
16) Icko Iben, Jr
Professor at Universtiy of Illinois (Dept. of Astronomy) with expertise in the structure and evolution of stars . A good publication record, but nothing on climate
J
17) Robert B. Jacko
Professor of civil engineering. Research interests are air pollution management and control, transportation noise problems, environmental occupational safety and health. Looks like he has some background in environmental problems ( I spot one publication on ozone modeling), but nothing on climate/climate change
18, Harold Jackson
founder and president of The JacksonHeath Group Inc., (I quote). “an international communications and management consulting agency established in 1990 that has provided strategic counsel to corporate CEOs, government officials, college presidents and dignitaries across the country and abroad.” No publications relevant to climate
K
19) Robert Kabel
Kabel does consulting work, and represents clients before Congress, Executive Branch departments and agencies, independent agencies and the White House. There is also a Robert L. Kabel who is in chemical engineering, though no publications anytime recent. All around, no climate expertise.
20) T. Theodore Kadota
Some different guys here. Possibly one in Spatial Statistics and Digital Image Analysis, another guy in Mathematical and Algorithmic Sciences Research Center from 1966-1994. Maybe the same guy, who knows.
No one with publications pertaining to climate
L
21) Peter La Celle
Department of Dermatology, member of Cancer Center at University of Rochester. From his publications linked inside, nothing to do with climate.
22) Timothy La Farge
This guy seemed interesting. If it’s the same guy in these publications, then he seems like he is into forestry (no work on climate). He has a couple of writeups in some obscure sources (and supporting some obscure material like geocraft.com, and Lindzen’s wall street journal article) on global warming, which are far from impressive.
M
23) Robert P. Ma
Sorry, couldn’t find anything on this guy. Certainly nothing relevant to climate.
24) Tso-Ping Ma
Department of Electrical engineering . Interested in technological issues related to semiconductor devices. No publications relevant to climate
N
25) Misac Nabighian
I suppose this is as close as we get to a goody. Dr. Misac Nabighian is a senior researcher in the department of geophysics at Colorado School of Mines. Research interests are Potential and electromagnetic fields in Geophysics: theory, data processing and interpretation. No publications relevant to climate.
26) Robert E. Nabours
Consulting Electrical Engineers. No publications relevant to climate.
O
27) Robert Quincy Oaks Jr
Couldn’t find anything on him here. I tried a few different search terms, but the guy doesn’t seem too popular. I get no publications relevant to climate (or anything)
28, Deborah O’Bannon
A civil engineering proferssor. She was also awarded the “Fellow Grade of the Society of Women Engineers for her empowerment of women in engineering.” No publications relevant to climate.
P
29) J. Pace
Hard to do much without a first name, but I googled J. Pace AND climate and got nothing. Miraculously, this guy seems to be another nobody. If anyone knows Dr. Pace, I’d love to hear it.
30) Gilbert E. Pacey
Professor at Miami University in the Center for Nanotechnology, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. No publications relevant to climate.
Q
31) Forrest W. Quackenbush
Into biochemsitry. Looks like a lot of work in biology and chemistry involving genetics, cellular level stuff, etc, but nothing on climate
32) James R. Qualey
The guy looks like he knows his stuff about smoke detectors, and appears to be a principal systems engineer. Unless the fire alarms have something to do with more forest fires in a warming world (maybe he’s preparing us all), he doesn’t seem to have any involvement with anything pertaining to climate
R
33) Bernard Raab
Couldn’t find anything really. He had a reply to a post about finding intelligent life in the universe where he says he’s a retired physicist. I don’t see anything of a publication record, let alone anything to do with climate.
34) F. H. Raab
Works with amplifiers and Transmitters. Cited in work on electronics, radio engineering, wireless communications, etc. No publications relevant to climate
S
35) Patrick Saatzer
Received his phD in Chemistry. Some publications on photochemistry of saturated molecules, but nothing on climate.
36) Burns Roy Sabey
Looks like he’s involved in soil science, and has am Introductory Experimental Soil Science book. No found publications on climate
T
37) Widen Tabakoff
Professor of Aerospace Engineering & Engineering Mechanics . No relevant publications (on his page) to climate.
38, Ronald Dwight Tabler
Check out Tabler and associates involved in engineering for snow, sand, dust, and wind control. No publications relevant to climate. Though, he has some work on the effects of snow fences on crashes, controlling blowing snow with fences, etc…maybe it’ll come in handy with climate change…who knows.
U
39) Herbert M S Uberall
Knowledge in scattering of soundwaves and acoustics. Now a retired professor, as they announced in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America . No publications relevant to climate.
40) Waheed Uddin
Professional in research and instruction, design, construction, maintenance management of highways and airports, sustainable development, and related areas of transportation engineering. Degrees in engineering. Publications in infrastructure management, but nothing to do with climate .
V
41) James P. Vacik
In Pharmaceutical area, here and from a college of pharmacy. To me astonishment, he has no publications relevant to climate
42) Juris Vagners
Retired professor in Aeronautics and Astronautics department. Degrees and teaching in engineering disciplines. Of course, no publications relevant to climate
W
43) William R. Wachtler
Patent of a Liquid processing and sorting system…interesting. Publications relevant to climate: zero
44) William Howard Wade
Couldn’t find anything scientific related. Some stuff on that family history and genealogy stuff. No publications relevant to climate
45) Ning Xi
degree in Systems Science and Mathematics, an M.S. in Computer Science, and background in engineering. Research interests include robotics, manufacturing automation, micro/nano systems, and intelligent control and systems. From his publications page (inside), nothing relevant to climate.
46) Y. Xie
A hard search term, and I got a few things, none of which was relevant to climate. Best bet is in biology.
Y
47) Dmeter Yablonsky
Mathematics professor for Pace University. No publications relevant to climate
48, Richard Howard Yahner
If it’s the same guy, Professor of Wildlife Conservation and Assistant Director for Outreach. Interests are in Wildlife ecology and conservation biology in forested and human-induced landscapes and ecosystems. Has publications in ecosystems, but not climate.
Z
49) Robert V. Zackroff- Microbiologist
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. No relevant publications on climate
50) Daniel J. Zaffarano (retired)
Involved in physics (Science Education K-12, retired Dean of Graduate College and Vice President, Research). Looks like some interesting stuff on Beta and Gamma Rays, but no publications relevant to climate.
Update– Apparently there is a Robert Quincy Oaks Jr. here and at least some papers in stratigraphy (back in the 1960’s, he’s retired now).
Climate Change 
Icko Iben is a very well known astrophysicist. He must be quite elderly now. Curious that he signed the thing.
It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with you is a bad guy. Answer me this Batman – what was the mean global temperature in 1932? And, how many times in the past century has the northwestern passage been open to shipping? There are no riddles here and you just need to deal with facts.
Response– A plot of global temperatures vs. time linked below. There is nothing special about 1932, and the data can be found at GISS or HadCRUT, etc.
On the NW passage, my history is a bit shaky, sorry…it’s not something I’ve looked into (nor does it sound very important to this subject). If you have an academic (peer-reviewed) reference on that, I’ll inform myself on Arctic shipping. — Chris
I don’t believe they were billed as all being climate scientists. Sort of like the Union of Concerned Scientists and all the issues they have taken a stance on.
They mention the number of signers in each field here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html
I have never thought much of the petition project–awfully sketchy, but some of the criticisms of the petition are downright ridiculous.
Response- Actually I’m tired of seeing it cited on blogs as some kind of authoritative scientific voice representing a reasonable opposition to AGW. It’s not. — Chris
“Response- Actually I’m tired of seeing it cited on blogs as some kind of authoritative scientific voice representing a reasonable opposition to AGW. It’s not. — Chris”
I don’t think it is either. I cringe every time I hear it mentioned, which is continuously. Science isn’t decided by polls or petitions.
I compared the existence, background, and publications of the first five alpha to the first five alpha from the AR4 WG1 a few days ago:
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/
I am doing the same thing you are but with a larger sample. I think you may have made an error with Robert Kabel. If you search for “Kabel, Robert L.” you will find a chemical engineer, who was on at least one paper about climatology back in 1977.
I feel that you may be looking at this the wrong way. The reason that they show so many people with PhDs is because a person with a PhD is more apt to think critically before making a decision. Granted, it’s not true in every case, obviously, but someone with a PhD in any scientific field is statistically more likely to look at all of the information available to them. I didn’t take the time to look at your educational background, so this is just an assumption, but I would guess that you don’t have a PhD in any evironmental science, nor would I guess that you have any publications relevent to climate change (barring, of course, this blog). Despite that, I wouldn’t automatically discredit you, because you have obviously done your homework, and made an informed decision.
Just because you or I don’t have a degree in any evironmental science doesn’t make our opinions invalid. Yes, I would tend to put more trust in someone that does, however, I don’t think it’s necessarily a requirement.
The fact that they have 9000+ people with PhDs that disagree with global warming doesn’t really mean anything, scientifically, but it is something to think about.
Response– Given the source, I’m not even convinced that all 31,000 people on this list actually signed their name (or even exist!), but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. I would hope that you are right in that receiving a phD should at least allow one to read and interpret the literature in other disciplines, and discern sound science from pure nonsense. From experience with my professors though, I wouldn’t ask many of them a question outside of their field, at least beyond 101 level stuff, so maybe not. But at the same time, none of them would go off signing petitions about things they know little about.
You can intepret this how you would like. I’d say climatologists shouldn’t perform animal surgery, and veternarians shouldn’t be signing petitions on climate change, but I don’t mean to imply that people outside of climate, geology, oceanography, etc can’t at least inform themselves and discuss the matter intelligently. I’d love to dinner chat with some of the signatories, but the only thing I want people to take from this is that this is not some authoritative organization or voice that people should be lsitening to over the National Academies, IPCC, etc. — chris
I looked at 150 names chosen at random over a few idle evenings, and found an alarming number (10) of dead signatories, one of whom had been so for a decade. Others were untraceable. Of the remainder,in loose professional groupings,most signatories were medical workers, petro-chemical workers, engineers (some patent-holders) and a smattering of agro-industry workers. A significant number were retired, semi-retired/consulting or emeritus; conservative, well-educated and elderly folk who’ve done well in the American Utopia. IMO, precisely the kind of people who would be likely to over-estimate their ability to reckon with this issue. None of my group had published on climate.
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation 🙂 Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Primitiveness!!!
Dead is from the original petition, they just added names.
Pingback: Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux « The Way Things Break
Pingback: Sadly, No! » Great Moments, Henry Lamb Edition
Chris Colose wrote “I’d say climatologists shouldn’t perform animal surgery, and veternarians shouldn’t be signing petitions on climate change…”
It is so true. Cilmate is an applied physics problem of tremendous spatio-temporal complexity that intertwins radiation physics, compressible gas dynamics in a field of gravity and under rotation, all contaminated with aerosols, soot, droplets, phase transitions, with surface boundary conditions of unimaginable complexity, and top boundary conditions that are in inherent contradiction with basic approximation of atmosphere as continuous media. In addition, all this thing is strongly coupled to another applied problem which involves fluid dynamics of oceans, again with free deformable surface, with non-analytical bed profiles which are subject to non-stationary drift, all exhibiting strong turbulent solutions on all time scales.
Expanding on your undeniable logic, we should agree that climatologists should not perform turbulent approximations (turbulence has no solution yet in the original field of fluid dynamics, nor its approximations have been verfied on sclales beyond laboratory size). Equally, climatologists should not conduct measurements that are nowhere close to scientific standards of instrumentation (as dictated by Nyquist theorem), or apply methods of Computational Fluid Dynamcs (CFD) to a problem of the scale where its parameterisations are not possible to validate in the way appropriare to original CFD methods. If, say, I am a specialist in any of this fields and see misapplication or abuse of methods that do not warrant pre-conceived or wishful conclusions of mainstream climatology, I would not give a rat to what National Academic in Climatology or IPCC politician would say.
I’ve noticed a couple of comments claiming that the list isn’t billed as being composed of ‘all climate scientists’. That is probably true but it is billed as containing signotures from people in relevant fields. From the ‘Qualifications of Signers‘ page.
‘Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.’
There is no doubt this list fails, and fails miserably, to meet its ‘appropriate fields’ claim.
Pingback: My dog’s doctor thinks global warming is a scam | hell's handmaiden
As I recall, Ursula Abbott was my landlord when I was an undergraduate at U.C. Davis back in the 1960s. I believe she got her degree in 1949, and she came to UCD as an instructor in the Poultry Department in 1955.
Like the skeptics of plate tectonics, it seems like a lot of the deniers are professor emeriti who just plain refuse to accept new ideas and new evidence. And I’m not sure that studying chickens gives one special insight on climate change issues.
I did a similar search thing recently and after looking for a few i came across this signee: KAEGI, Dennis D
They did a thesis at the Coal Characterization Laboratory, Department of Geology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale… in 1977.
Read what you will into that.
Pingback: Wonk Room » Politico’s Erika Lovley Promotes Toxic Stupidity About Global Warming
I’m coming at this from the other direction: to illustrate how easy it is to find the *real* climate scientists online. I started from two sources: (1) all the authors of some top climate science papers I’ve read for courses, then finding their other top-cited papers and collecting names of their co-authors; find their work-related home page and find even more co-workers there, and repeat for a while; and (2) the readily available list of 619 lead authors of IPCC AR4 working group 1. It’s posted on Eli Rabbett’s blog, and I quickly tracked down the PDF original from “annex ii” of the wg i report. A bit of pre-processing with unix command line and I had the list of names and affiliations in plain text.
I’ve loaded that into Excel, then over a couple of weeks of evenings and weekends I’ve expanded my list to just over 1300 unique names, with year of PhD, current teaching or research lab affiliation, home page, and photo. (I wanted to put faces to the names).
I wrote a simple perl script to format these into an HTML table, sorted by frequency of citation for those I’ve had time to copy down those stats, then just alphabetically for the remainder.
My blog post with links to the pages I generate is
Green Herring The big table is still a work-in-progress. This week I’m plugging away collecting the year of PhD for more names. Up to now I’ve gathered 1318 names, 1133 homepages, 975 photo links, 560 PhD dates, 501 sets of citation stats of authors’ top 4 works found in Google Scholar.
Oh, yeah: as for the Oregon pathetiction, I stumbled on their updated site while trying to find info on whether NOAA NCDC Director Thomas R Karl, M.Sc.,
(homepage) has a Ph.D., as none is mentioned in his brief online bios. Searching on his name and “PhD” led to a denialist site’s vitriolic tirade suggesting that everything NOAA reports on climate is a BIG FRAUD because someone has called him “Dr. Karl” just because he is the director supervising a huge number of Ph.Ds, perhaps leaning on the FLIMSY excuse that he’s been granted at least one honoris causa honorary doctorate for his extensive achievements.
Arghh…
Anyway, “Mr.” Karl is one of the only names in the top 100 of my list sorted by citation count who does not show a Ph.D. Bren Holben has an M.Sc (1976), Joseph Berry (#2 most cited, home page link currently broken) lists his Ph.D. but not the year (so I just enter “PhD”), and Timothy C Johns of the Hadley Centre has no online bio or C.V.
Then there’s Richard Wetherald, prolific co-author of Syukuro Manabe dating back to the 70’s, who is a programmer and just got caught up in the science and his contributions stood on their own to the point where he became lead or sole author of subsequent, well-received journal papers.
Another puzzler is Keith Briffa of Univ. of East Anglia, whose online bios skirt the question of what his academic background is; but today he teaches university courses on climate and his name is on papers with two to three hundred cites.
The pattern continues through the second century of listings; maybe one in 20 lacks a clear listing of when and where they obtained their Ph.D., but every one of the top 200 listings has four or more papers with at least 79 cites. Some of these may still have the Ph.D. and just lack good web presence. Most have some teaching role at a major university, even if their principle workplace is a government research body such as NCDC, NCAR, or GISS.
So in brief, it’s about as hard to find a top published author without a Ph.D. as it is to find a name on the Or-be-gone Petticoatition who DOES have one, at least in a relevant field, and a pulse.
Followup:
Here’s the page with the screed against “NOAA’s exaggerations”:
Chris Horner’s ‘The Karl Report’ on planetgore.nationalreview.com.
Pretty sad stuff. Mr. Horner: how about the other hundreds of PhDs in IPCC AR4 wg1? How about the 1700 U.S. scientists and economists with PhD’s who’ve signed the Union of Concerned Scientists’ plea for action on climate, here:
Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in GHG Emissions – eh?
Quote: This unprecedented list of signatories includes six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 30 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 10 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 10 recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship, and more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. End Quote
“
Some ask ‘what is the purpose of the petition?’
Well, the MSM (very little media for that matter) isn’t reporting that side of the debate. I believe the petition is a reaction to the lack of coverage. It makes clear that the debate is not over, as the former Messiah once declared.
Action…Reaction.
On a side note…I think we should all start referring to the MSM as “Big Media” (a la Big Oil). I have still yet to run across a Mom-n-Pop oil company. 😉
-Mike
Response– I disagree. My cat’s doctor saying global warming is a hoax doesn’t open up a debate in the mainstream scientific community, at real academic meetings, etc. Creationists who complain about radiometric debating also don’t make mainstream geology and evolutionary biology “up in the air” unless substantial data is reported in the scholarly literature. People who make smoke alarms or those who have never studied climate in their life saying “it’s all the sun” doesn’t make it a “debate.”
Similarily, I do not think scientific topics should receive “balanced treatment” but rather what appears in the scholarly literature should be reported on. It’s very American that everyone can just have their opinion and anyone can listen to “both sides” and “make up their own mind” but that’s not how it works.– chris
Nice work, Chris – URL added to my notes.
I started doing something similar, but just took names at random. I found dentists, anaesthetists, agricultural engineers and even a genealogist.
It’s telling that the list is still regularly used by the Denial Gang – they’ve got little else to use. And as I usually reply when offered it – “you don’t ask your dentist for a second opinion on heart surgery, so why listen to him when it comes to climate change?”
Have you done a similiar analysis of the scientists who believe in AGW? I would suspect that you would find a much higher percentage of them are even less qualified as climate scientists than those who don’t believe in AGW.
What about a list of scientists, like Dr. Hansen of NASA who have manipulated or made up data to prove that AGW exists?
What about the scientists that have shown that many of the sampling sites are NOT properly placed (such as too near an air conditioning unit)?
So Al Gore is a climate scientist is he? And I must be a denialist then (ooooohhh, like a nazi you mean?) who has come to the conclusion that AGW is a dark ages doomsday cult, and pushed by the lefties who want to turn us all into slaves of the state. YOU ARE F#####G INSANE. Your scam is falling apart you self rightious asshats.
Pingback: Understanding the Basics of Global Holocene Climate Change « Understanding Global Warming
Pingback: Understanding Global Warming
Doing a “Google Search” isn’t doing research. At best, such a search can only pick up what someone has put into a webbed computer database.
Response– I never said this was “research” in the sense I’m going to submit it to a journal. I think this post does illustrate that there’s no reason to accept this petition as authoritative anymore than I should care about the opinion of my next door neighbor about climate change. People who have a publication record in climate related issues, or work for an institution/university dedicated to a similar field should show up in google/google scholar. Google the first 60 people on the IPCC report to see what I’m talking about.– chris
Pingback: What if the Oregon Petition names were real? « Greenfyre’s
So… this is another hole where the AGW religion apostoles are gathering to discuss their flawed gospel based on pseudo-science funded by their global corporate masters.
You gentelmen, are no scientists, but slaves for the money they feed you to spread the lies about CO2 and humans being the cause of global warming! Better go find yourselves another job, ’cause you are all exposed for the fraudsters you are, and your invlovement in this scam will soon spell the end of your miserable academic carriers (if we can call them academic!).
Wouldn’t it be great if everyone with PhDs carefully researched all of the available data with an open mind before rendering an opinion? Unfortunately, this is not the case. Large numbers of scientists have historically doubted everything from the nature of the solar system to germ theory. Even if every one of the over 9,000 scientists with PhDs had signed the petition (while alive), this represents less than 1% of the doctoral degrees awarded in the US alone in the last 30 years (I expect most of these are also alive) (http://www.norc.org/projects/survey+of+earned+doctorates.htm). I’m not going to bet my children’s lives on this tiny number of people who may have simply clicked on a web-site button to express their current doubts.
I ran across your comment about my dad, Robert L Kabel. Yes, he was an award winning chemical engineering professor at Penn State for 30 years and a sought after consultant for the petroleum industry as well as Xerox and other large companies. He taught in Norway, Iran, New Zealand, and travelled extensively on behalf of the AICHE accrediting engineering curriculum. True, he does not have specific “climate” from the layman perspective (meaning climate does not show up in his title). But he has studied and written on the issues in extensive detail. In fact, he co-authored a historic book called Sources and Control of Air Pollution. If you had taken the time to read, you would have seen not only a vast amount of research and knowledge, but even a rather prophetic treatise on how this issue would develop worldwide within governments and environmentalist industry.
I can tell you from first hand experience experience how he came to the decision to include his name on this document. If you would like to speak to him directly, I can help you with that as well.
I can not comment on any of the other 29,999. But I can tell you that Robert Kabel signed this document with a very sincere intent to express his view that the “science” of “global warming” is extremely incomplete and is not even close to a consensus as far as the CAUSES of global warming.
All Around “no climate expertese”. NOT TRUE.
Thanks
Doug,
If that’s true about your father, then I think he was unwise to have gotten himself involved in signing such a deceptive document. It gives him a bad name.
One of the things that bothers me about the petition (in addition to the poor methodological control) is that many of the people who sign it would apparently agree that it’s possible that we’re causing GW but that we don’t know enough to be able to avoid doing stupid things that will hurt us more than help.
There may be some truth to that, but the problem is that the “deniers” are trying to use the petition to “prove” that man can’t be causing GW. They should be two separate subjects with people making decisions on them independently. If they convince people that it’s all a “hoax”, then people will be making their decisions on the basis of a lie.
The Anatomy of Earth, and Global Warming.
Earth’s Orbit around the Sun is Decaying.
The real reason for global warming is the earth’s orbit around the sun is slowly decaying, in other words the earth is moving closer to the sun. The earth is a planet that functions like a machine. Like cars, trucks, aircraft, or rockets. The earth has a fuel system (crude oil/ methane gas wells), an engine system (the core), an exhaust system (volcanoes), and a cooling system (the oceans). A car’s engine system generates torque, an aircraft’s engine system generates thrust, and the earth’s engine system generates a powerful magnetic field.
People take the earth’s magnetic field for granted, because it’s invisible, and silent. The earth’s magnetic field protects all life on the surface of this planet from the sun. The magnetic field performs several other functions. The magnetic field holds this planet together, and holds life, objects, and the ocean to the surface of this planet, it retains the air we breathe, and keep it from escaping into space. It protects life on this planet from sun flares, deadly radiation, and from poisonous gases, it acts as a force shield, and its responsible for thunder storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards
The earth acts as a generator’s armature, it rotates at one thousand miles per hour, its magnetic field brushes against the magnetic field of the surrounding universe, and electricity is generated, just like in a common generator. This energy is trapped in earth’s atmosphere, where it gathers moisture from the atmosphere, and forms thunder storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow storms, etc. These are all electromagnetic phenomena.
The earth’s magnetic field also, keeps the earth at a safe distance from the sun, and the moon. The molten core of the earth is the engine that generates the magnetic field. The earth’s fuel system is referred to as oil wells/ crude oil reservoirs. They are actually self pressurizing fuel cells. Like any machine, if you were to shut off fuel to the engine, the engine will stop operating. The oil company’s crude oil extraction process compromises the earth’s fuel system, and shut off fuel to the earth’s engine (the core), by releasing pressure out of the earth fuel system (oil wells). Normally the pressure in a crude oil well/ reservoir is tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds per square inch. These oil wells are located all around the planet for even heating of the core. Uneven heating of the core will result in a shift in the earth’s axle.
Under normal circumstance the core (the engine) stays at a constant between 5000 to 7000 degrees celsius, and the pressure in the core is tens of thousands to hundreds of pounds per square inch. The oil is ignited long before it reaches the core, and enters the lower mantle, and outer core as flames, and heat. Crude oil, and its components are called hydrocarbons, and are capable of generating the temperatures, and pressures found in the core, and lower mantle, and in oil wells.
1of 4
The higher the temperature in the core the stronger the earth’s magnetic field. The cooler the temperature in the core, and the weaker the earth’s magnetic field. The earth’s engine is being fuel starved, and the core is slowly cooling. As the core cools the earth’s magnetic field will weakens, and the earth will be pulled closer to the sun.
Global warming has nothing to do with green house gases (Co2), holes in the ozone, CFC, R-12 refrigerant, the sun going nova, aerosol propellant, methane gases, or the earth going through a cycle, etc. Hydrocarbons such as coal are safe to use, its crude oil/ methane gas that should be left alone. If Co2 gases are responsible for global warming, why aren’t there reports of a spike in global temperature in the early twentieth century, during the industrial revaluation in America, and Europe? WARNING:
1. The high temperature in the core of this planet is not sustained by decaying
nuclear material, or nuclear processes. The radiation would escape during volcanic eruptions. No radiation has ever been detected after a volcanic eruption. Only crude oil, and natural gas by-products, such as the great pressures, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide gases, etc.
2. Thousands of scientist, geophysicists, and environmentalist don’t believe in the green house gas theory, because it makes no sense.
The only way to reverse global warming is for the oil companies to re-pressurize the earth’s fuel systems (crude oil/ methane gas wells). One way this can be accomplished is by igniting the methane gas in the fuel cell (oil/ gas well). The ignited gas will expand, and create the pressure need to force the remaining crude oil (fuel) into the outer core. This is the real cause for global warming, and the only way it can be reversed. It must be understood crude oil, and methane gas was not created to fuel our industries, or automobiles. It was created to fuel this planet.
Volcanoes are the earth’s exhaust system, and was designed to rid the core (the earth’s engine) of spent fuel, debris, and they regulate the pressure in the outer core, which is generated by the combustion of crude oil, and methane gas. The pressure that’s release from volcanoes are provided by dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur, dioxide, carbon monoxide, and the facts are these are all crude oil by-product, including the pressure.
These gases, and the pressure proves beyond a shadow of doubt, that crude oil, and natural gas are being burned in the lower mantle, and outer core of this planet, and lots of it. The materials ejected from volcanoes originate from the earth’s core.Volcanic eruptions in the pass were stronger, than present day eruptions. This is due to the core of this planet cooling. The more hydrocarbons that are burned in the lower mantle, outer core the higher the core’s temperature, and the stronger, and more frequent volcanic eruptions will occur. Green house gases are not responsible for global warming. It goes beyond green house gases.
2 of 4
Something is going wrong with the earth itself, and its obit around the sun is changing. These are not separate events they are part of the orbital decay.
1. The earth is moving away from the moon. 1.5 inches per year
2. The rotation of the earth is slowing down.
3. The earth is shifting on its axis (40 miles per year). Twelve o’clock noon use to be the hottest part of the day. Now three o’clock in the after noon is the hottest part of the day. This is due to the earth shifting on its axis. The earth is also wobbling on it axis. This was discovered before the Chilean earthquake in 2010. I discovered it on the internet in 2008.
4. NASA scientists have discovered that the earth is developing a breach in its magnetic field.
5. Both polar ice caps are being melted, one at a time, during each polar ice cap’s summer season, and the oceans are rising, due to the melting ice.
6. As the earth moves closer to the sun, the sun’s heat, and rays will continue to spread, and warm a wider area of the earth’s surface. It will warm areas of the planet that are in it’s winter season. The heat will spread to the polar ice caps, and will melt all of the ice.
The events above were discovered by other geophysicists, astrophysicists, and environmentalist. These scientists believe that the events above will get worse in the following decades. The orbital decay, and global warming are in the beginning stages the worse has yet to come. If global warming isn’t reverse it is going to impact people, who has yet to be born. Don’t be confused by the fluctuation in weather (temperature) from year to year. Instead focus on the trends, and the trends are both polar ice caps are being melted, and the temperature on this planet is rising, and so are the oceans. Global warming has to be measured by the centuries. The earth’s orbit around the sun will decay very slowly.
Written by: Willie McDonald (July-1983)
cdnld30@gmail.com
1-832-891-2865
3 of 4
The Anatomy of Earth, and Global Warming
References, and Sources
1. The earth magnetic field protects all life on the surface of this planet. The molten activity in earth’s core generates the earth’s magnetic field
Sources: NASA, and NASA Official: Dr. Tycho Von Rosenvinge. The U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S.G.S., and NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center.
2. Source: Gold, Tom, “Oil from the Centre of the Earth”, New Scientist, p.42, June 26, 1986“Petroleum is saturated with Hydrogen” Hydrocarbons are a volatile gas.
Source: Research Council in 1985, titled Oil in the Sea; National Academy Press cited in Jones, and Neuse (1995). The composition of petroleum.
3. The Earth shifting on axis, and the earth moving away from moon, and the rotation of earth is slowing down, and a breach developing in earth’s magnetic field. These are not separate events. It’s due to the earth orbit around the sun decaying.
Sources: NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center, NOAA, USGS, and the American Astronomical Society.
Source: Richard A. Lovett, San Francisco for National Geographic News- (The Earth’s magnetic core- Earth Shifting on Axis) December 24, 2009.
4. The pressure from is volcanoes are provided by the combustion of hydrocarbons such as crude oil, and methane gas. All hydrocarbons expand, and pressure is creates, when ignited in an enclosed vessel, such as the outer core, and the lower mantle. Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc are release. These are all crude oil, and methane gas by-product, and that includes the pressure.
Sources: USGS.
Reference: Blong, R. J. 1984, Volcanic hazards-A sourcebook on the effect of eruptions: Academic Press, Australia, 424p.
Reference: Kenneth A. McGee, and Terrence M. Gerlach, 1995/ Volcanic Gas: USGA open file report 95-85, 2p.
5. Thousands of scientists disagree with the green house gas theory.
Sources: U.S Senate Environmental, and Public Works Committee/ Minority Staff Report (Senator Inhofe). http://www.epw.senate.gov/minority.
Original Release: December 11, 2008. Presented at the United Nation Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland. Contact: Senator: Marc Morano (202) 224-5762, or Senator: Matthew Dempsey (202) 224-9797.
Sources: (The global warming petition project). 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 scientists with PhDs denouncing the green house gas theory.
6. Both polar ice caps are beginning to melting, and causing the seas to rise.
Sources: NRDC, NOAA, and NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center, and the EPA.
4 of 4