Quantcast
Skeptics Stretch Definition of "Scientist" 31,000 Times Print E-mail
Written by Dave Loos   
Monday, 19 May 2008

In keeping with the amount of virtual ink this item deserves, we're going to try and keep this short. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine held a press conference this morning to announce that 31,000 "scientists" have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.

According to OISM officials, 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 climate damage is wrong."

So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 "experts" on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!

OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something. Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."

  • W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
  • Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."
  • Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.
Comments
Add NewSearch
Earth & Economy - No "Convincing" vs "Substan     | 69.181.174.xxx | 2008-05-19 18:40:49
I enjoyed the use of the adjectives "convincing" and "substantial" in this petition. Both allude to varying degrees of uncertainty. The petition couldn't simply state, "There is no scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide..." (without including the adjective convincing) because that would be a flat out lie, so the word "convincing" is loaded because obviously the evidence is not convincing or else this issue would not continue to be debated. I would have to agree it is not convincing by the mere fact there are still skeptics, but I also wouldn't blame the lack of scientific evidence for their skepticism. I think it is safe to assume their are other factors at play. So when it comes to the "substantial" amount of scientific evidence that increases in C02 benefit plant and animal environments, I would say no duh if we are talking about photosynthesis which is required by plants to live—plants that feed animals. But really, I would love to see someone suck on a tailpipe from their vehicle or even breathe in exhaust in close quarters and tell me that is "substantial" CO2 for a human animal in their natural environment...in this case a garage (which isn't natural by any means). So, between the wording of the petition or the generalized degree credentials for these "educated" signees, I don't think much has been convincingly and substantially clarified. Humans are harming the planet, period. No debate. If you don't believe in doing good for the planet then maybe you should invest in space exploration (or take a hit from a tailpipe) and spare the rest who care from this noise. Let's say this petition is correct, then what next...do nothing because we aren't responsible?
Reply | Quote
0 0
Eric Roston - Nice     | 68.50.25.xxx | 2008-05-25 23:48:53
I like that the deniers are making lists of themselves. This way the angry future will know who was dragging their feet.
Reply | Quote
0 0
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
 

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]

Hi, We're EnviroWonk

Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.

So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.

Weekly Updates

RSS

rss