HomeMy WebLinkAbout5ALateDocument31Appendix 4: The Petition Project 743 1.3. Frequently Asked Questions 1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling the expectations of its organizers? Yes. In Ph.D. scientist signers alone,
the project already includes 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations’ IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if
there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the humancaused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it. Moreover, the current totals of 31,478 signers,
including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, those numbers would be much higher. 2. Has the petition project helped
to diminish the threat of energy and technology rationing? The accomplishments of science and engineering have transformed the world. They have markedly increased the quality, quantity,
and length of human life and have enabled human beings to make many improvements in the natural envi?ronment of the Earth. Today, scientists are seeing the accomplishments of science
demonized and one of the three most important molecular substances that make life possible—atmospheric carbon dioxide (the other two being oxygen and water)—denigrated as an atmospheric
“pollutant” in a widely circulated movie. Scientists who have carefully examined the facts know this movie contains numerous falsehoods. This and many other similar misguided propaganda
efforts in the media naturally repel men and women who know the truth. The search for truth is the essence of science. When science is misrepresented, scientists are naturally incensed.
There is, therefore, a rapidly growing backlash of opposition among American scientists to this egregious misuse of the reputation and procedures of science. The Petition Project is
helping to demonstrate this opposition and, therefore, to reduce the chances of misguided political reductions in science-based technology. 3. Who organized the Petition Project? The
Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and
the signatures of its 31,478 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition. 4. Who
pays for the Petition Project? The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition.
The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute
of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions
involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by
scientist volunteers. 5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers? Opponents of the Petition Project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to
discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed
as soon as discovered. In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories—real or fictional.
Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For example, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are real scientists who have signed
the petition and happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists. 6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names? Thousands of scientists have signed
the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical
names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization.
Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed. 7. Are any of the listed signers dead? In a group
of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about
Climate Change Reconsidered 744 deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an “*” is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip
Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased. 8. Why is this effort called “Petition Project?” Signatories to the
petition have signed just the petition—which speaks for itself. The organizers— themselves scientists located at several scientific institutions–have designed the project to emphasize
this single fact. The use of a post office box mailing address, a generic name– Petition Project—and other institutionally neutral aspects of the project are intended to avoid the impression
that the signatories have endorsed the agenda or actions of any institution, group, or other activity. They are simply signers of this petition to the government of the United States.
9. Why was the review article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? The authors chose to submit this article for peerreview and publication to the Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons because that journal was willing to waive its copyright and permit extensive reproduction and distribution of the article by the Petition Project. 10.
Why is the Petition Project necessary? In December 1997, then U.S. Vice-President Al Gore participated in a meeting in Kyoto, Japan during which he signed a treaty to ration world energy
production based upon fear of human-caused global warming. This treaty was not, however, presented to the United States Senate for ratification. Since before that Kyoto meeting and continuing
to the present day, Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the “science is settled” – that an overwhelming “consensus” of scientists agrees
with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement. These proponents of world energy rationing have consistently argued that,
in view of this claimed scientific “consensus,” no further discussion of the science involved in this issue is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax, regulate,
and ration hydrocarbon energy. Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that this claimed “consensus” does not exist, a group of scientists initiated the Petition
Project in early 1998. Thousands of signatures were gathered in a campaign during 1998-1999. Between 1999 and 2007, the list of petition signatories grew gradually, without a special
campaign. Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October
2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.
The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of “consensus,” release of the movie An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, and related events. The campaign
to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has been markedly expanded, and many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously,
proposed political actions to sharply reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries. As
Professor Seitz states in his Petition Project letter, which speaks of this impending threat to all humanity, “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have
the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.” The Petition Project is a means by which those citizens are offering that advice. The Petition Project P.O.
Box 1925 La Jolla, CA 92038 www.PetitionProject.org