31,000 Signatures Prove No 'Consensus' on Global Warming

Presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that “we have to get used to the idea that we can’t keep our houses at 72, drive our SUVs and eat all we want.” Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, has a different response.

“I don’t want to give up eating all I want because of a failed hypothesis,” said Robinson at the National Press Club here on May 19. Robinson said global warming is not a threat to America. He said that the global temperature increased by just .5 degrees in the last century.

Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”

“World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”

Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.

Dennis Avery, Director for the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. “Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing,” said Avery. “To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.”

The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away....

I guess you missed the part about the 9,000 Ph.D.s.

No. I simply missed the part where that was relevant since the PhDs did not have to be in a related field. They could have PhDs in anything at all as long as the signer has a BS. I guess you missed that part.

Just because they repeat the 9,000 figure over and over, it does not suddenly become relevant if those 9,000 were not all qualified to give an opinion in the first place.

What does 9,000 PhDs mean to you?

It should mean nothing without further information on how they were qualified.

Go back here: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/73/

Look at some of the people they dug up who signed it. Dentists. Mathematicians. Medical Doctors. Veterinarians.

The White House didn't even think it was worthy of comment: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64866

This unique piece by L. Auster explains why liberal institutional thinking is structured to reject all and any opposition such as the 31,000 signatures, and, why liberalism must be more aggressively attacked, starting first in educational institutions.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010605.html

Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
All People Are Good, Except You
By The Brussels Journal
Created 2008-05-15 09:48

A quote from Lawrence Auster at his blog, 15 May 2008

The key to the [Ontario Human Rights] Commission’s thinking is in its labeling, as wrongful “Islamophobia,” the view that Islam is a threat to the West. The assumption underlying such a judgment, whether about Islamophobia or bigotry generally, is that all people are good (except for people who don’t believe that all people are good), and that no people can be a threat (except for those people who believe that some people can be a threat). Since all people (that is, all people who don’t hate nothing except hatred) are good, and since no people are enemies (except for the people who believe that there are enemies), any negative statement about a group (except for negative statements about the society’s own majority group) is by definition a false, vicious, dehumanizing attack on that group.

The core error of this liberal view is that it never considers the possibility that some people and groups (other than the majority peoples of the West) may indeed be enemies. Specifically, it never entertains the possibility that Islam is in fact a threat to the West. If Islam is a threat to the West, then saying that Islam is a threat to the West is not an act of bigotry but a statement of truth and part of a legitimate effort to protect the West from a real enemy. By condemning and punishing such defense as illegal bigotry, modern liberalism prohibits the West from defending itself.

In short, liberalism has taken group conflict, a normal feature of human history, and turned it into an immoral act, with the further twist that only the West is capable of exhibiting such immorality against other groups, while other groups are incapable of exhibiting the same immorality against the West.

How does liberalism get away with seeing only Westerners’ negative statements about Islam as wrongful, but not Muslims’ threatening statements about the West? Very simple. Under liberalism, there is no society “here” to be attacked. Under liberalism, Canada is not a substantive entity—not a nation, not a culture, not a people, not a “group.” Canada is, instead, a system for the promotion of human rights. Not being a concrete group or culture, Canada cannot be an object of bigotry. But Muslims and other immigrants, who are concrete entities, can be objects of bigotry. Muslims are a group and therefore deserve to be protected from discrimination. Canadians are not a group and therefore do not require protection from discrimination.

In short, Western peoples do not need protection under the modern liberal order because modern liberalism, in its very premises, has already defined the Western peoples out of existence. This is why it’s a waste of time looking for liberals and mainstream conservatives (who accept the premises of liberalism as much as the liberals do) to protect us. Under modern liberalism, the Western peoples have already in principle ceased to exist, and all that’s left is the mopping up operation.

The Commission, by the way, makes an interesting Freudian slip. After pointing out that Ontario’s anti-discrimination laws do not infringe on publications and books, it mentions the more sweeping anti-discrimination laws in other Canadian jurisdictions, with the obvious intent that Ontario emulate them:

Limits to freedom of expression under some other human rights legislation in Canada are broader, stating that no person shall publish, issue or display before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol or other representation.

Of course the Commission left out a phrase. It meant to say something along the lines that no person shall publish any statement, symbol, etc. “that discriminates against anyone.” By leaving out the words, “that discriminates against anyone,” the Commission makes it sound as though the law prohibits all statements, publications, and symbols, period. Meaning, the total cessation of public writing and speaking. I call this a Freudian slip because, as argued here, the prohibition of all discourse is the logical end toward which liberalism is really heading.

Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3255

No. I simply missed the part where that was relevant since the PhDs did not have to be in a related field. They could have PhDs in anything at all as long as the signer has a BS. I guess you missed that part.

People who have an earned doctorate in virtually any field (except, perhaps, education) have had training in collecting and interpreting data, in developing, supporting, and defending a hypothesis before a panel of experts in that field. These skills are transferable to other areas of knowledge. They especially are sufficient to be able to spot the hoaxes of the anthropogenic global warming movement. It's not an arcane matter like string theory making predictions about results that are open only to a very few people with access to extremely expensive equipment. Folks like Hansen claim that there was no Medieval Climate Optimum. But there are hundreds of studies by hundreds of researchers demonstrating independently the existence of worldwide warming phenomena that extend back throughout thousands of years. Against many thousands of real world studies, we have a handful of folks making claims and predictions based on computer simulations that themselves are not validated by the real world. Upon this base a cadre of bureaucrats have erected a mechanism by which they can exert economic and political control over every nation on earth--at this point, over every economically important nation on earth. It's also not difficult to see this as but another incarnation of the same attempt that was made through the anti-chemical movement of the 1970's to take over government and shape it toward socialist, centrist ends.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming