Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists




Before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Ron Paul: Madam Speaker, before voting on the “cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.

The peer-reviewed summary, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz — past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world — wrote:

“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

“This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

“The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

“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.

“We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.”

Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. “Cap-and-trade” will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of “global warming” and “climate change” advocates — claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz’ petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth — not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.

Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people — the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people — including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise — including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

7 Comments:

  1. Need to research who these people are, who they work for, and if their science is in the correct field. I went to the website and picked one name with a PhD just for the hell of it. I picked Ross S. Anderson, PhD and googled him. He is a carbon-dating denier talking about the bible and the great flood, that's not science! So who are some of the other people? How many work for the coal, oil, pharmaceutical, or god industry?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  2. Regarding Ron Pauls stance on Anthropegenic Global Climate Change, please google and read "Michael MacCracken’s analysis of errors in Robinson, Robinson, and Soon" the article sent out with the petionproject
    "Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, in an analysis posted here for the first time, identifies dozens of scientific errors and misleading statements in a 2007 paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon entitled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide” – a contrarian effort that exemplifies the sort of work that provides fodder for the global warming disinformation campaign.
    Also please read the book The Climate War by Eric Poole that discusses Hoax petitions based on unacredited and fictitious scientists.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. The 31 thousand

    Dr. Paul

    Pardon this minor detail about what you said.

    It is my understanding that the Constitution is predicated on the Declaration of Independence, that the Declaration of Independence is the primary instrument of American liberty and sovereignty. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Constitution was the best instrument they could agree on to execute the authority vested by the Declaration of Independence at the time.

    Jefferson also surmised that any generation might need to implement a new interpretation = a new Constitution.

    This distinction is important because the Constitution stipulates the Electoral College, which was formed to provide slave owners more than one vote each. This is no longer relevant, yet the easily corrupted Electoral College increases our vulnerability to political crooks, otherwise useless as an appendix. Considering the last 10 years and the 1878 election scandal (1st Watergate) that was exposed by the Chicago Tribune, and the fact of electronic vote fraud, you can imagine why this is a concern.

    I could be wrong, this is my understanding.

    I also think we should listen when 31,000 scientists call out openly treasonous politicians for lying to get more wealth and power.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. While I support Ron Paul and find his ideas very persuasive, i feel the discussion of Climate Change on this post is disingenuous. Why, for example, do people immediately attack the scientists who deliver the message of global warming? When scientists produce a bigger memory chip that will make your computer better, you don't attack them, but when they warn of potential catastrophe, the first reaction of republicans and libertarians is to dismiss the research. Everyone feels confident in their personal assessment of the scientific evidence. Why?

    I thought the dismissal of evidence is the province of demagogues. I can't imagine Murray Rothbard resorting to this sort of frivolous argumentation.

    Let's even say that Global Warming is a sham. Just for the sake of argument, let's even devise a different proposition - there is global cooling, let's say. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the evidence is irrefutable. The hypothetical issue presents a challenge to the conception that market forces are capable of addressing every problem. Game theory would dictate that in the interests of personal welfare, it would not be rational for an individual to reduce his emissions (or in the case of climate cooling do some other thing which is considered to contribute to the problem).

    The question, given this scenario, is how does the libertarian philosophical framework address an issue of this nature?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    • If you believe there is irrefutable evidence of some catastrophe that can only be prevented by forcing others to start doing (or stop doing) certain things, then you have the right to try to convince others of this irrefutable evidence and that it is in their best long-term interest (and/or the long-term interest of our species) to do as you say.

      If they do not comply (and here it gets a bit murky) then I'd say that you have the right to try to force them to the same extent that they have the right to resist.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    • Scientists are beyond reproach?

      When you are theorizing about AGW being a scam, wouldn't that point to there not being a 'problem'.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • I'm not saying scientists are beyond reproach. I'm saying that some people seem to only reproach them when they don't like what they are saying. Science is not perfect, but it's subject to a free market of ideas of sorts with peer review, reliance on confirmed theories, etc.
        Again, when drug research leads to certain results, I don't feel I am competent to dismiss them, because there is a history of science bringing results for productivity, health, quality of life, etc. Why should I put on a meteorologist hat and start contradicting people who dedicate their life to research?

        I don't like institutional coercion any more than you do, but why can there not be possibilities which present a theoretical challenge? Overcome it intellectually, don't dismiss it!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− four = 2

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>