Sorry Carlos - Petition Project seems to be pseudo as well....
Al Gore's presentation to the UN certainly wowed the world's leaders. His pseudo-scientific "evidence" is junk science that is agenda-driven. But don't believe me...check out the "Petition" website I quoted in my previous post.
Copy and paste into browser: http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HTML.html
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html
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.)
