LMAO. 39 climatologists, one fox, and the Spice Girls signed that petition, while 10.6 million people with science degrees (99.7%) didn't.
The Oregon PetitionIn 1998, thousands of scientists across the U.S. received a package from the OISM. It contained a packet of information made to look like a peer-reviewed scientific study, laid out in a nearly identical style and format to that of research papers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the official journal of the NAS. A cover letter, signed by Dr. Seitz, referenced his background with the NAS, thereby giving the false impression that the Academy had issued a public statement doubting the validity of the global warming hypothesis. It also urged the scientists to sign an enclosed petition, the text of which reads as follows:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposal limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or any other greenhouse gas is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Shortly thereafter, legitimate scientific organizations like the NAS and the American Association for the Advancement of Science were besieged with calls from scientists who were concerned that a fraud was being perpetrated. Regarding the manuscript's curious layout, Robinson told Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model...but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."
Uh huh. Sure.
In a statement on the affair, the NAS offered an unprecedented rebuke of a former Academy president, stating:
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition...a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The statement continued:
The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.
It also noted:
The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.
And, it cited another report, concluding:
...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as an insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.
The NAS also set about thoroughly debunking the faux scientific paper that was distributed; a rather definitive refutation was written by Dr. Steven Dutch of the University of Wisconsin, who takes the OISM to task for presenting legitimate scientific research and misinterpreting it so badly, intentionally, and publicly.
Despite the timely efforts of the NAS and the many criticisms leveled at the now-infamous Oregon Petition, the damage was already done. By 2000, the survey had accrued some 17,000 signatures. That number continued to grow (the OISM released a second round of mailings in 2007), even though the deceitful nature of Dr. Seitz's letter and the near-fraudulent formatting of the attached research paper had already been exposed. Of course, having already worked closely with the tobacco industry, Seitz was accustomed to such blatant marketing schemes.
Big Numbers, Little CredibilityCurrently, the Oregon Petition website boasts that the 31,487 U.S. scientists have signed the petition. That sounds like an impressive number, well worth the stir it has caused over the validity of climate science. Is it, though?
Well, no.
First of all, the meager measures the OISM took to actually verify the credentials of the signatories are highly questionable. Indeed, the Internet being what it is, pranksters submitted several bogus names to the petition, including: Hawkeye Pierce (character from M*A*S*H), actor Michael J. Fox, lawyer/author John C. Grisham, Senator Robert C. Byrd, fictitious lawyer Perry S. Mason, Charles Darwin, and Geri Halliwell (a.k.a. Ginger Spice). Also submitted were prank names, like I. C. Ewe.
Arthur Robinson admitted to the Seattle Times that very little attempt was made to verify the credentials of those who responded. He said, "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."
Really?!? There's no way to filter out the fakes? How about asking respondents to provide documentation of their academic credentials (which OISM didn't do)? How about simply asking respondents to list the institution from which they earned a degree (which, again, the OISM didn't bother to do)? How about asking for literally any other identifying information and not just mailing out a paper that anyone can sign?
The lack of accountability on the part of the OISM alone is enough to laugh off their "petition" as a joke. A collection of largely unverifiable signatures on some 31,000 slips of paper does not a petition make. Scientific American examined a random sample of the signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. related to climate science, and found that far fewer actually support the statements made in the petition than the OISM claims. Naturally, this didn't prevent Fox News, well-known for its scientific rigor, from citing the petition in its coverage of climate change.
To be fair, the OISM did take some measures - after the fact - to address issues such as fictitious and duplicate names. Their petition website claims to have verified 95% of the names as legitimate, although this is only in reference to the first wave of mailings, not the second (in 2007), which nearly doubled the number of signatures (from about 17,000 to almost 32,000). So, even if they managed to verify the identities of those signatories (and one wonders how they would do so, given OISM's lack of transparency regarding their methods, as well as the lack of information signatories provided in the first place), as far as anyone can tell, they haven't bothered (or been able) to verify the identities of about half of them.
The Petition Project website lists the number of signatories by area of expertise. Of the 31,000-odd names, only 39 are listed as climatologists. That's just over 0.1 percent of respondents. Furthermore, it is impossible to verify the authenticity of these 39 names because the petition does not provide a list of signers by area of expertise - it just gives the number of signers in each field.
Assuming, for the moment, that every single name on the petition is real and legitimately credentialed, the entire petition is still irrelevant. The validity of science is derived from empirical evidence, not opinion; the veracity of the evidence, not the number of people who accept the proposition - scientist or not - is what gives it weight. Moreover, even if scientific fact was determined by a popular vote, the petition represents only a small fraction of scientists, and only a small fraction of signatories are actually professional scientists with degrees in a relevant field.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, about 10.6 million people had obtained degrees in the sciences between the 1970-71 and 2006-07 school years. 31,487 out of 10.6 million works out to about 0.3 percent of U.S. science graduates - a minuscule minority. And, because the petition's organizers never released their sampling methodology, we have no response rate and therefore cannot accurately extrapolate from their sample. Their lack of transparency is somewhat ironic, considering how vocal climate "skeptics" are when it comes to keeping climate researchers open and candid about their work and making their data and methods publicly available.
As previously mentioned, little is known about the signatories. We do know, however, that the petition defines a "scientist" as anyone with at least a B.S. or equivalent degree. In fact, the largest single category of signatories is those whose highest degree is a B.S. or equivalent - 12,715. By any account, having a bachelor's degree does not qualify someone as a professional scientist. If you think that a B.S. makes you an expert in any field, I'd suggest you seek out the expertise of someone who has one the next time you come down with, say, lung cancer.
Similarly, one might notice that engineers have a plurality of signatures (almost 10,000) on the petition. Engineers, while their work is invaluable, are not scientists
substantiagrisea.kinja.com |
