<div>I do not expect to change your mind, but the misinformation you are promoting on climate science might mislead those who have not investigated this subect in depth. The urgency for citizens to push for action from government, the private sector and on a personal level, to address anthropogenic climate change, is weakened by misinformation on this critical scientific issue. So for those who may be following this thread, such as it is, I will respond.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Heartland Institute, which you referenced regarding an upcoming "International Conference on Climate Change," is not a legitimate peer reviewed scientific organization, and is well known for promoting junk science on climate, not "a broader view," as you asserted. For example, they promoted the book "Unstoppable Global Warming," by Avery and Singer, which fraudulently used the work of climate scientists the authors claimed supported their book's conclusions, scientists who have stated their work was misused in this book. Some of these scientists are quoted rejecting the use of their work in this book at the second URL below. Read on this subject, and the so called "scientific" conferences sponsored by the Heartland Institute, at the other two URLs below, sourced from Realclimate, a website sponsored by a group of the world's leading climate scientists:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/</a></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><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> </div>
<div>Of course, the scientific consensus on climate change relating to human impacts, is expressed in the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>and numerous prominent science academies and climate science organizations worldwide (American Meteorological Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, et. al.), with thousands of climate scientists in broad agreement that current climate warming is primarily caused by human activity, and will increase with profound impacts, as human sourced CO2 emissions increase atmospheric CO2 levels, unless greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Read documents below, for validation:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><strong><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf" target="_blank"><font size="2">http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf</font></a></strong></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><strong></strong></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger">
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</a></div>
<div> </div></span></div></div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Can you refer to a credible source for the petition you reference, stating that global warming is "natural" and "not a crisis," signed by 34,000 scientists? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I suspect that this so called "petition" is the fraudulent effort rejected by the National Academy of Science, that originated with Frederick Seitz and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. I exposed this fraudulent petition's questionable legitimacy in a post to Vision2020 answering Courtney's <a href="http://right-mind.us">right-mind.us</a> assertions regarding climate science, an excerpt of which follows lower down.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For my full answer to Courtney's <a href="http://right-mind.us">right-mind.us</a>, where I also reference a paper from the American Institute of Physics, that clarifies that the greenhouse effect due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is based on well established principles of physics, read the post at this URL:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/055108.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/055108.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paper from the American Institute of Physics on climate science at URL below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm</a></div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div>From my Vision2020 post above:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Courtney wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Second, there are <strong><em>a lot</em></strong> of scientists who flatly disagree with anthropogenic <span name="st">global</span> <span name="st">warming</span>. 31,072 American Scientists have publicly signed a petition denying anthropogenic <span name="st">global</span> <span name="st">warming</span>. There are <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Statephpcontent.php?run=Idaho" target="_blank">228 from Idaho</a> and <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Statephpcontent.php?run=Washington" target="_blank">603 from Washington</a> that have signed; and 9,021 with PhD's.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>My response:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The petition Courtney referenced originated in part from a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, who misused his connections to the NAS to present the petition as though it originated from the NAS. This forced the NAS to issue a public statement of rejection of connection to the petition, and an emphatic disagreement with the scientific claims made in this petition. The results of any petition presented with misrepresentation of its origins should be questioned. And the climate science arguments used by Seitz, and his associates promoting this petition, have been examined in detail and found to be highly questionable (a polite way of saying "junk science"). Where is Courtney's skepticism regarding Seitz and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? Apparently, Courtney applies extreme levels of skepticism rather selectively. Seitz, the petition under question, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, are examined in detail at URL below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>At the URL below is the statement from the NAS regarding the petition Courtney cited, with a few quotes below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998" target="_blank">http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Council of the <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www2.nas.edu/nas/" target="_blank"><font color="#000066">National Academy of Sciences</font></a> (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.pnas.org/" target="_blank"><i><font color="#000066">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</font></i></a>. 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 <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i> or in any other peer-reviewed journal."<br>
<br>The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.</div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/11/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">lfalen</b> <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I missed the Climate Conference at the University las week because I was baby sitting grandkids. I assume the tenor of this conference was mostly in line with the view that global warming is man caused. A broader view of this will be the "International Conference on Climate Change" to be held March 8-10 in New York. There will be 73 conference speakers.<br>
More than 34,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that global warming probably is natural and is not a crisis. For more information see <a href="http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org">www.globalwarmingheartland.org</a>.<br>
Even so, efforts should be continued to clean up air pollution and more toward alternative energy sources using the market system to do so.<br>Roger<br><br></blockquote></div>