Guided by Olin's references, my first clicks led me to the Petition
Project and its supporting "scientific" article, which essentially
provided all his content, word for word, with the exception of his
personal editorializing, cum Fox News. The Petition Project (or Oregon
Petition, as it is sometimes called) (www.oism.org/pproject or
www.petitionproject.org) has been around since the Kyoto Climate
Conference (1997) with essentially the same technical material. From
there I went to the Wikipedia website for an unqualified overview,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition where the story takes on
some interesting twists and turns.
Looking into the validity of Potter's source material, we find the
Petition Project derives its core message from a scientific article
entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide" by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon.
From Wikipedia we see that the credentials of the article itself are in
question. "The article followed the identical style and format of a
contribution to <MI>Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,<D> a scientific journal,[6] even including a date of
publication ("October 26") and volume number ("Vol. 13: 149-164 1999")
but was not actually a publication of the National Academy. Raymond
Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago,
said that the article was "designed to be deceptive by giving people
the impression that the article ... is a reprint and has passed peer
review."
"After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in
a 1998 news release that 'The NAS Council would like to make it clear
that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of
Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed
journal.'[15] It also said 'The petition does not reflect the
conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.' The NAS further noted
that its own prior published study had shown that 'even given the
considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena,
greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt
responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance
protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of
dramatic surprises.'"[16]
The Wikipedia entry also notes attempts to document some of the 31,000
signatories by local newspapers, <MI>Scientific American<D>
and the Oregon Petition itself. The article's author, Arthur B.
Robinson, stated, "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's
no way of filtering out a fake," which maybe is an understatement once
you see who's on the list.
I emailed Bill McKibbon who responded:
"The petition is one of the hoariest of the denier nostrums.
Long since completely debunked (there's a good summary here, but there
are many others around the web:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey).
Among other things, the 31,000 signers (anyone could go online and
join) included all five Spice Girls and Dr. Hawkeye Pierce."
As always, Bill's good for a quote.
So after looking up "denier nostrums," I bounced to the RealClimate
website to see a rather thorough debunking and unraveling of the
"science" behind Mr. Potter's resource. Interesting how the cumulative
power of the internet can be used for a collective purpose.
In today's cyber world, we all have to check sources, get the story
behind the story, and keep an open mind. I'm not going to regurgitate
what you so aptly can find for yourselves. Like the old proverb about
teaching a man to fish, I am only pointing towards a few fishing holes
where you catch your own.
Personally I'll choose to be influenced by the 2007 UN report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, authored by 600 scientists from 40 countries and reviewed by
representatives from over 113 countries before approved. "Three years
in the making, the report is based on a thorough review of the
most-up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific literature available
worldwide."
The UN report concludes with "very high confidence" (90 percent) that
human activity is affecting the world's climate." The full underlying
report is published by Cambridge University Press and can be viewed in
English at www.ipcc.ch.
Olin dismisses the UN report in favor of the "Petition Project." He's
free to make such a choice, which may be influenced by his view of the
UN itself or his political views in general. But for me, the
preponderance of evidence showing that humans are affecting this planet
and its environment is personal and apparent. The real playing field is
the hearts and minds of the citizens who impact the political process.
The "350" event was a political act to awaken our leaders. It was
successful beyond the founders' wildest dreams. For those of us who
biked that rainy afternoon in Waitsfield, or in some way made noise at
the other 5,200 sites in 181 countries, we know we created a little
more awareness. Check out www.350.org for a potpourri of creative
inspiring images from events around the world. Be inspired yourself to
get involved, for this is the only planet we've got.
Coleman lives in Warren.
