<div>I revealed that the global warming skeptic petition presented to Vision2020 recently originated with misrepresentation, based on efforts from a former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz (and his associations with the the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, publishing junk science on climate change), who misused his prior connections to NAS, forcing the NAS to issue a statement rejecting his global warming petition with its misuse of their identity, and clearly stating the NAS disagreed with the claims of this petition:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054638.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054638.html</a></div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div>Consider S. Fred Singer, and Dennis Avery (of the Hudson Institute, a blatantly political, not scientific institution), neither of whom are climate scientists, offered as a credible source on climate science, regarding the book, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," and other media or Internet campaigns, which was presented to Vision2020 as a source for hundreds of published peer reviewed scientists who disagree with the claim that anthropogenic warming is a serious problem. Here is the source offered on Singer and Avery:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml">http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or another at URL below, that I offer:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html">http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html</a></div>
<div>----------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Too bad some are taken in by this sort of irresponsible yellow journalism junk science. Many of the scientists whose papers have been used by Singer and Avery to promote their claims on climate science, have responded to this use of their scientific work with utter rejection:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute">http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?</div>
<div>
<div class="node_blog_date"> </div>
<div class="node_blog_date">29 Apr 08</div>
<div class="node_blog_date"> </div>
<div class="node_blog_date">Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute"><font color="#336699">Heartland Institute</font></a> article entitled <a href="http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21978"><font color="#336699">500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.</font></a></div>
<div class="blog_content">
<p>The article, by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute"><font color="#336699">Hudson Institute </font></a>director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Avery"><font color="#336699">Dennis T. Avery</font></a> (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.</p>
<p>DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.</p>
<p>This is a brief taste of some of the responses that have been copied to the DeSmogBlog:</p>
<p>Here's some more quotes: </p>
<h1 class="blockquote"><font size="2">I am very shocked to see my name in the list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist."</font></h1>
<p><font size="2">Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University.</font><strong> </strong></p>
<h1 class="blockquote"><font size="2">Just because you document natural climate variability doesn't mean anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined represent a greater threat."</font></h1>
<p><font size="2">Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University</font><strong> </strong></p>
<p><font size="2">Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?"</font></p>
<p><font size="2">Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute</font></p>
<h1 class="blockquote"><font size="2"><strong>They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."</strong></font></h1>
<p><font size="2">Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey</font> </p>
<h1><font size="2"><span class="blockquote"><strong>Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."</strong></span></font></h1>
<p><font size="2">Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo </font></p>
<p class="blockquote"><font size="2"><strong>I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."</strong></font></p>
<p>Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh</p>
<p class="blockquote"><font size="2"><strong>I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."</strong></font></p>
<p>Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University</p>
<p><strong><font size="2">I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."</font></strong></p>
<p>Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford</p>
<p><span class="blockquote"><strong><font size="2">Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"</font></strong></span></p>
<p>Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University</p>
<p><font size="2"><span class="blockquote"><strong>I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."</strong></span></font></p>
<p>Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University<br>--------------------------</p>
<p>It is easy to compile a list of scientists, who have published articles and books, who question Einstein's Relvativity theory, Darwin's Evolution theory, or the Big Bang theory, all scientific theories accepted as having a solid basis in science by the scientific community. Wrap them together, and sell the contents to an awed public, wondering how Einstein, Darwin, Smoot and Mather, could indulge in such hyperbole! And let's not forget those full of hot air gas bag global warming promoting climate scientists, terrorizing other scientists into following their party line (give me a break! Do they wear uniforms and carry tasers?), for career promotion, grants, big book deals, and power over the public, while they lead the deluded hoi polloi into a big government wet dream of liberal world wide regulation, ruining the global economy, forcing the poor into further poverty and malnutrition, scaring innocent children into believing the the planet will burn up... Please!</p>
<p>Singer and Avery's work on climate science is based on a pre-selected collection of papers, some of which do not support their thesis, though they cherry pick statements from the papers to suggest they do, all aimed at supporting their argument, deliberately rejecting published scientific articles that negate their thesis; and not seeking general peer review in the scientific community (they would face a rather critical audience).</p>
<p>"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," would be rejected as a presentation of objective unbiased scientific research, by numerous reputable scientific organizations, given its conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming are not accepted by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.</p>
</div></div>
<div>Their work is nothing more than sophisticated pseudo-science cherry picked opinion writing, that will fool the gullible who have not done in depth research into climate science. Skepticism based on an open minded assessment of all of the published work on climate science is respectable. But Avery and Singer seek to obfuscate an open minded assessment. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This discussion at Realclimate, offering commentary from climate scientist David Archer, who attended a talk by Dennis Avery, and was able to ask substantive questions (they apparently did know who he was), offers more perspective on this issue:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/">http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/</a></div>
<div>-----------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>