Ever hear the one about the 31,000 scientists who reject climate change?
During the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in 1997, the Oregon Petition Project sent a letter and petition to thousands of science degree holders. A former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Fred Seitz, penned the letter. The letter was an attempt to fool readers into believing that a PNAS study discredited anthropogenic climate change, so that they would be convinced to sign an enclosed petition rejecting both the Kyoto agreement and the science on which it is based. The misrepresentation was so blatant that the NAS issued a press release clarifying that they had no part in the study. It was only when the petition was recirculated in 2007 that the study found an online home in a "journal" that opposes vaccines and gun regulation, urges physicians not to participate in Medicare, and considers the FDA unconstitutional.
While the "big name" on the letter was that of Dr. Seitz (who was hired by tobacco companies to help cover up the smoking-cancer link and later dismissed on the grounds that he was "not sufficiently rational to offer advice"), the main organizer was Art Robinson. Robinson is a man who questions the HIV-AIDS link and thinks nuclear waste should be used to "enhance" drinking water. Because Robinson and others at the Oregon Petition Project never bothered to verify the signers, there are numerous (humorous) signatories, like the Spice Girls. Despite this absurdity, the petition has never gone away.
So, Brian Angliss—who debunked the petition in 2009—took it upon himself to do yet another debunking based on newer data. In two articles, he contextualizes the Petition Project's 31,000 signatories within federal education and employment data. In so doing, Angliss shows that the 31,000 names represent a tiny fraction of those who could've signed the petition: 0.25 percent of people who earned science and engineering degrees since 1970, and 0.44 percent of people employed in science and engineering fields in 2013.
And if all that isn't enough, Robinson himself dropped by in the comments, attempting to challenge Angliss by asking "how many scientists and engineers have signed (in writing with their credentials and addresses known) a similar petition promoting the hypothesis of human caused global warming?" Angliss responds by pointing to the five different actual scientific surveys showing a consensus. He then schools Robinson on the difference between his petition and "properly designed surveys" and lays out how Robinson's work "is questionable at best" and "no better than a self-selected internet poll."
Stay tuned for part two of this debunking, which will include a comparison between the petition's numbers and those of more reputable studies. Rest assured, all investigations into the Oregon Petition Project reaffirm that the 31,000 consensus rejects are, like they were in 1997 and 2007, still a joke.
-----
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories:
Stuff Happens to the Environment, Like Climate Change- There was a time when we could tolerate this kind of dumb-as-we-wanna-be thinking. But it’s over. The next eight years will be critical for the world’s climate and ecosystems
Political Pollution| Don’t let Big Oil undermine efforts to protect humanity
Korean energy economist to head UN climate science panel. Hoesung Lee elected chairman Tuesday of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told The AP that the UN-affiliated science group will do more to examine the effects of warming on more local levels, "especially in developing countries."
Protesters block award ceremony over Exxon's 'climate change denial funding'| ExxonMobil have spent almost £20m funding researchers and thinktanks that promote misinformation on climate change.
Elizabeth Warren's Next Target Is Big Oil | "The most obvious effect of lifting the crude oil export ban would be to produce enormous profits for a number of big oil companies," Warren said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing
Fall in China's coal use here to stay, leading expert says| "It is amazing what has happened in the last two years," Professor Qi said. "Nowadays people are talking about 'wait a second, maybe the coal peak already happened in 2013'."