Posted On 04 Jun 2017
By : Jonathon Moseley

A growing list of 31,487 U.S. scientists (and counting) has signed a
petition strongly rejecting as unproven the hypothesis of man-made
global warming or climate change. These signers include four NASA
astronauts, at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists, 9,029 Ph.D.s
 and some of the nation's top climatologists. Only U.S. scientists are
included in this particular petition. Only relevant scientific fields
are included.

Ball-and-stick model of carbon dioxide (By Jynto [CC0], via Wikimedia
Commons)

The "Global Warming Petition Project" includes a dramatically strong
statement to which 31,487 scientists have already signed their names:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 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.

This is very strong statement. A vastly larger number of signers would
sign a less-dramatic, less-controversial petition statement. Other
scientists would only want to say that they remain undecided and are
not part of the fabled "consensus."

Similarly, most scientists would be discouraged from stating that
increased carbon dioxide is actually beneficial to the climate.
Therefore, most scientists who do not count themselves among the
fabled "consensus" would not go so far as to sign this particular
petition.

The petition includes the further statement, which relatively few
scientists would sign on to, even if they reject a consensus on
climate change. Most scientists would prefer to state that they do not
know one way or the other:

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 proposed limits would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage
the health and welfare of mankind.

The project website explains the project as follows:

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.

The project website states:

Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that
this claimed 'consensus' does not exist, a group of scientists
initiated the Petition Project in early 1998.

The project explains:

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.

The project website further explains:

In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times
more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC
process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that,
if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition
to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

The hypothesis of man-made global warming is particularly
controversial because there have never been any empirical experiments
testing the effect of carbon dioxide in the open atmosphere. The
hypothesis rests exclusively on computer models. Models are created by
humans and merely reflect the assumptions and biases of the humans who
create them. The only test of such models is whether they predict
accurately future events. However, climate change models consistently
fail to predict real-world temperatures. A real scientist would reject
models that fail that acid test.

Although it is observed in the laboratory that CO2 absorbs and holds
heat, how CO2 behaves in the open atmosphere in a planet-wide
climactic system cannot be tested. One challenge is that atmospheric
gases circulate freely. The air containing minor traces of CO2 can
easily soar many miles up to high altitudes, where the thin air can
radiate heat into outer space.

Earth's orbit with 0.5 eccentricity. Although Earth's orbit is never
this eccentric, the illustration indicates the potential long-term
effects on earth's temperatures (By NASA, Mysid [Public domain], via
Wikimedia Commons)

Another challenge is that researchers must distinguish any effects
resulting from CO2 as opposed to natural climate cycles caused by
variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. The Earth's orbit
changes from egg-shaped to nearly circular and back again due to the
gravitational pull of the other planets. These overlapping
Malkinovitch cycles affect the Earth's climate over tens of thousands
and hundreds of thousands of years, causing periodic ice ages. The
Earth's temperature has changed over geologic history due to orbital
variations affecting the distance to the sun throughout the year.
Science, of course, was effectively established by the "scientific
method" popularized by Sir Francis Bacon in Bacon's 1620 book Novum
Organum. (Bacon rejected the thought experiment methods  from
Aristotle's Organum, which today's post-modern scientists have
returned to.)  The scientific method mandates that every hypothesis
must be tested and proven by empirical experiments, and those
experiments must be repeated and reproduced by many independent,
unrelated teams of unbiased researchers under varying conditions in
different locations.
Readers may recall "cold fusion." Researchers at the University of
Utah claimed to have discovered techniques for conducting nuclear
fusion—the immensely-powerful nuclear engine that powers the sun—at
room temperatures. This would have revolutionized human life
everywhere. But the Fleischmann–Pons experiment could not be
reproduced by other researchers. Even convincing scientific
experimental results are not valid until replicated by independent teams.
The petition project was started by Frederick Seitz, Past President of
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and President Emeritus of
Rockefeller University, and a former director of the atomic energy
training program at Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory, and former
physics teacher at a number of top universities (now deceased).
Despite the death of its founder, the project drive is continuing to
add names. However, a limited budget restricts how fast and thoroughly
the petition list can grow.
Moreover, the current totals of 31,487 signers, including 9,029 PhDs,
are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for
printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.
A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming
hypothesis is circulated with the petition.

New signatures are being collected by successors here.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

2/10/2015
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about
global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But
we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/,
executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change,
admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the
world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting
ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time,
to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at
least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be
adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she
added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given
ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic
development model for the first time in human history."

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at
all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order
that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays
long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market
capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased
70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming
"the economic development model" because she's really never seen it
work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato
economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand
while they choke developed economies with their left.