To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (10847) 3/24/2007 10:50:59 AM
From: Wharf Rat of 10876
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz
ucsusa.org
==================
Myth 2
American scientists don't buy it - 19 000 signed a petition against the IPCC's views and the need for the Kyoto Protocol
The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA:
In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.
The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.
In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental assertions:
In the summer of 2001, George W. Bush asked for the assistance of the US National Academy of Sciences "in identifying the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties," and for its "views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC Reports and the IPCC summaries." The NAS was given only a month to respond but did so nonetheless:
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Despite the fact that the committee producing this report includes a notable skeptic who allegedly colludes with industry* (Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T.), the NAS report states:
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. … Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years" (p.3).
For further publications of the NAS see:
Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002)
Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (2001)
The reader is invited to visit the Union of Concerned Scientists' website for an excellent summary of the skeptic organizations, their tactics, and other hoaxes such as the so-called Leipzig Declaration.
* Lindzen calls himself an "independent scientist" and consults for the fossil fuel industry at a rate of US $2500 a day (Sharon Beder, Corporate Hijacking of the Greenhouse Debate, The Ecologist, March/April 1999, pp. 119-122.)
sierraclub.ca
=================
1] From ECOLOG-L e-mail listserver, March, 1998:
Dear Colleagues,
This message from the Union of Concerned Scientists is to caution you about a petition effort to reject the Kyoto Protocol that is circulating throughout colleges, universities, and research institutions nationwide. Nadine Lymn, Director of Public Affairs for the ESA, has granted permission to post this message.
Several scientists have recently notified UCS about this petition urging scientists to undermine the newly negotiated climate change treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The KP requires industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on average by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the first "commitment period" between 2008 and 2012.The petition is being distributed through a mass mailing that includes deceptive materials and serious misrepresentations of climate science. The petition has no identified organizational or institutional sponsor and is known only as the "Petition Project."
What is the Petition Project exactly? A petition, distributed through a mass mailing, urging the US government to reject the KP. It consists of a petition signature card with a brief anti- Kyoto Protocol statement; a short letter signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz; a reprint of a 12 Apr 97 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth"; and an eight-page article entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" which mimics the format of a published journal article even though it has NOT been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor accepted for publication.
The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute - identified as the article authors’ affiliations - to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project’s conclusions reflect the authors’ political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it.
***On the "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide:"
The "review article" accompanying the mailing is NOT a peer-reviewed journal article, despite its apparently deceptive formatting. Nor is likely that it could be published in a mainstream science journal due to its extensive use of selective, false, and misleading material.
The "review article" contains all the usual misstatements about global warming popular with the skeptic community. It contains, for example, an oft-quoted but thoroughly rebutted and discredited "comparison" of satellite data with "an IPCC" climate model (in fact, the model was not an IPCC model nor was it appropriate for such a comparison in the first place).
The short-term satellite data purporting to show a global cooling trend since 1979. Not only is this time frame far too short to be climatically relevant, the data is used without citing the Geophysical Research Letters article showing that, when corrected for El Nino and volcanic activity, the satellite record shows the same warming trend as the surface record. The same GRL paper shows that longer term radiosonde data (often cited as confirming the accuracy of the satellites) shows a warming trend, with or without correction, consistent with the century long surface temperature record.
The myth that solar activity can fully account for the observed warming trend. Changes in the sun’s output can influence the Earth’s climate but the sun is only one component affecting terrestrial climate. Current scientific understanding suggests that the sun’s influence is less than one-fifth of the human-related climate influences, such as emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and sulfate aerosols, land use changes and ozone depletion.
The misleading assertion that "as atmospheric CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase." The plant fertilization effect of elevated CO2 has only been demonstrated in laboratory conditions when plants have unlimited access to water and nutrients. The long-term ecosystem effects are unknown. However, changes in precipitation and temperature related to climate change may have adverse effects (on soil moisture, disease and insect infestations) that could negate any gains from CO2 fertilization.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1995 Second Assessment Report on climate change concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a human influence in the global climate system. This conclusion was grounded in the analysis of over 20,000 articles from the relevant literature. Hundreds of scientific and technical experts were involved in preparing the report, and literally thousands more were engaged to provide objective peer-review. Where competing views were present, they were reconciled through peer-review if possible; when consensus was unachievable, the disagreements were characterized and the issues for future clarifying research were identified. Thus, the Second Assessment Report should be seen for what it is: a massive, policy-neutral review of the current state of understanding of climate change science.
Contrary to the Petition Project’s contention, the Kyoto Protocol is an important beginning to the decades-long international effort to prevent serious global warming. It requires industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on average by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the first "commitment period" between 2008 and 2012. It will lead to important initiatives promoting clean energy and transportation technology both here in the US and abroad.
This is not the first time that Frederick Seitz has been involved in an effort to undermine the integrity of the IPCC’s conclusions. He was previously involved in falsely accusing both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a member of the climate science community of intentional deception and violation of procedure.
*** Scientific resources for accurate information on climate change:
*The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the available scientific, technical, and socio-economic information in the field of climate change. [http://www.ipcc.ch/] The IPCC’s "Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate Change" is available direct at ipcc.ch.
*The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) - working with research institutions to increase the skill of predictions of seasonal-to-interannual climate fluctuations and long-term climate change. [http://www.usgcrp.gov/]
*The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - the Centre provides up-to-date assessments of both natural and human-induced climate change [http://www.meto.gov.uk/sec5/sec5pg1.html]
*The Global Hydrology and Climate Center - a joint venture between government and academia to study the global water cycle and its effect on climate.[http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/]
*The MacKenzie Basin Impact Study - a six-year collaborative research project sponsored by Environment Canada to investigate a northern high-latitude region sensitive to climate change. [http://www.tor.ec.gc.ca/earg/mbis/mackenzie.htm]
*The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy [http://cdiac.ESD.ORNL.GOV/about/intro.html]
The Union of Concerned Scientists can be contacted by email message at ssi@ucsusa.org or by snailmail at 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 (attn. Katie Mogelgaard).
with friendly regards to all,
Darren Goetze
Staff Scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists
[2] Another posting from ECOLOG-L e-mail listserver, March, 1998:
Regarding the pseudo-paper many of us may have received, care of the Oregon Institute of whatever-they-decided-to-call-it:
My response is less measured and civil than Dr. Huenneke’s. The publication’s format closely mimicked PNAS, but with no publisher. It was not peer-reviewed (although it may have been examined by its sponsors in the fossil fuel industries). In other words, it is bogus by most accepted standards. It will serve as a recent example of "brownlash" activity in my courses, not that I am hard-pressed to find other examples. A petition signature card was enclosed, with a return envelope, to recruit adressees in a campaign to nullify the Kyoto accord. I returned mine with a rather personal message, and I encourage others to something similar. It will cost a 32 cent stamp. Mine featured a drawing of Bugs Bunny.
Cheers
George Robinson (no relation to the phony paper's authors)
Assistant Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
State University of New York at Albany
campus.queens.edu
======================
Art Robinson
DeSmog is thoroughly investigating 61 signatories to an anti-climate-change petition sent in April, '06 to Canada's Prime Minister. Supporters claim it is signed by "60 leading scientists." We will report daily on their credentials and their connections (or their lack of connections) to the oil or tobacco industries.
Here's our growing database. Please select from the dropdown menu below:
Select... William JR AlexanderAugust AuerNils Axel-MornerSallie BaliunasTimothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)Jack BarrettSonja Boehmer-ChristiansenPetr ChylekIan ClarkPaul CopperRichard S. CourtneyPeter DietzeFreeman DysonHugh W. EllsaesserRobert H. EssenhighChristopher EssexChris de FreitasLee C. GerhardVincent GrayKeith D. HageHoward HaydenDouglas V. HoytZbigniew JaworowskiWibjorn KarlenMadhav KhandekarWilliam KininmonthHans HJ LabohmDouglas LeaheyGerrit van der LingenAlister McFarquharRoss McKitrickPatrick MichaelsFred MichelAsmunn MoeneTad MurtyR. Timothy PattersonBenny PeiserAl PekarekIan PlimerHarry N.A. PriemAndreas ProkophRM (Bob) CarterPaul ReiterArthur RorschRob ScagelGary D. SharpPaavo SiitamS. Fred SingerL. Graham SmithRoy SpencerGordon E. Swaters (had name removed)George TaylorHendrik TennekesBoris WinterhalterDavid Wojick
Classification: Denier
Art Robinson
Misleading scientist
Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming." (source). Robinson is the founder of a group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM ), which markets, among other things, a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and books on how to survive nuclear war.
In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute , released a petition on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.”
The infamous "Oregon Petition"
The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself. In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute , co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
Oregon petition and big tobacco
It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.
Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."
Robinson admits he is not a climate scientist
Of his own admission Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming," and an ISI database search of publications confirms that Robinson has never published any research in the area of human-induced climate change.
desmogblog.com |
