Why Did 32,000 Scientists Sign a Petition Dissenting From Global-Warming Consensus?

Previous Article Next Article
June 10, 2008 | 69,802 views

At a press conference on May 19, Dr. Arthur Robinson announced the release of the names of 32,000 scientists who have signed a strongly worded petition dissenting from the position taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientific organizations.

Signers include more than 9,000 Ph.Ds, although only a relatively small percentage of the signers are climate scientists.

Most signatures were obtained by mailing to lists of university professors and a compendium that constitutes a “Who’s Who” of American scientists.

The debate over global warming is very similar to the propaganda machine started by tobacco giant Philip Morris in 1992, as they went to work on discrediting an EPA report attributing dangerous health problems to smoking. That was when the term “junk science” became part of the lexicon.

To smoking advocates, junk science referred to scientific, peer-reviewed studies linking smoking to cancer, whereas "sound science" meant studies supporting the tobacco industry's claims that the link was inconclusive, principles soon used by global warming advocates to blur the debate in a similar fashion.

Are We Focusing on the Real Issues at Hand?

Personally, I think it’s quite clear that global warming is a natural cyclic occurrence that is not solely created by man. To ignore these cycles and focus exclusively on data that supports global warming as a man-made phenomenon doesn’t solve the problems associated with global warming, but it does create brand new financial and political platforms.

However, that does NOT mean I’m for continuing polluting the world as we are today.

Naturally, we would all be healthier with less pollution and environmental toxins of all kinds. But these are things we need to address because they are health hazards in and of themselves, not necessarily because they’re heating up the planet and must be strictly controlled and enforced by some small empirical ruling group who will make the decisions to save us from ourselves.

I believe in more self-responsibility by individual citizens, and better, cleaner, safer alternatives. Not just more governmental taxes and fines while letting business go on as usual and ignoring real health-benefiting solutions.

The issue of global warming is indeed a hot topic – just reading through the unusually prolific and fervent opinions in the Vital Votes comment section below will give you a taste for how divided people are on this issue.

Opinions, and “supporting evidence” abounds; covering the entire spectrum from ‘man had nothing to do with it and therefore we need to do nothing to clean up our atmosphere,’ to ‘man is solely responsible, and we have to take severe and drastic measures to stop its progression.’ There are studies that purportedly support both sides of the argument, with each side saying that “the debate is over.” But as Lawrence Solomon said in the Financial Post, “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?” 

Does the Sun Influence Climate on Earth? 

There are clear correlations between the ebb and flow of sunspots and the temperature here on earth. When the frequency of sunspots rises, earth’s temperature rises as well. When they disappear, the earth cools. During the Maunder Minimum, a 50-year period when the sun was uncommonly quiet, the earth fell into what’s referred to as The Little Ice Age.  

Right now, we’re heading into a big sunspot cycle. It started in January 2008, with the onset of a reversed-polarity sunspot. So, in the next several years, we’re likely to experience many record high summer temperatures, and warmer than normal winters. The glaciers will continue retreating.

And then, when solar cycle 25 hits ten to twelve years later, the overheating will subside, and we may even experience a minor ice age.

Who Does the Idea of Man-Made Global Warming Benefit? 

I haven’t taken a stance on why, exactly, political global warming activists are doing what they’re doing. But I’m not ruling out the possibility that there are vast financial gains involved that will be made even though it won’t change the inevitability of the natural occurrence of global warming, which will be followed by a natural global cool-down.  

One of the dangers, as I see it, is that by being distracted by fear mongers, we might not focus on the real issues at hand: securing safe and healthy foods to eat; ensuring safe water supplies; figuring out alternative, non-polluting sources of energy as oil becomes a scarce commodity and poor air quality is choking many parts of the world literally to death.  

And, fixing the fatally flawed health care system in the United States, which will only get worse as the climate changes, regardless of what or who’s at fault.  

On May 29th, the Associated Press announced that the White House had finally produced their U.S. global warming report, under court order, after refusing to release it for four years. This 271-page report includes predictions of increased smog-induced deaths, water shortages across the United States, a need for billions of dollars in more power plants, increased food- and waterborne diseases, and last but not least, a disproportionate disparity between the poor, the elderly, and the uninsured, compared to those who can afford healthcare insurance.  

These are the issues we need to focus on changing.  

We can’t do anything about the inner workings of the sun, but we can work toward creating a cleaner and healthier environment for all, and you can work on creating optimal health for yourself and your family, and make the necessary preparations for surviving and staying safe in these changing times.

[+]Sources and References [-]Sources and References