• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scient

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
* Mr. 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.petitionproiect.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 31,477 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

[Page: E1325] GPO's PDF

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.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
* 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.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OH, oh, Hypo, looks like Reader tagged you on this. Don't tell me that you're going to have the distinction of being the first one here that she has gotten.....
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
6-4-9025.jpg



this is eastern Montana, elevation approx.2000'
Dad's lived here 72 years and never seen snow here in June before.
Global warming??
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
6-4-9025.jpg



this is eastern Montana, elevation approx.2000'
Dad's lived here 72 years and never seen snow here in June before.
Global warming??

That's kind of like the summer of '80 in Texas. Sweat soaked prune feet before 8 a.m. That was nearly 20 years ago.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
OH, oh, Hypo, looks like Reader tagged you on this. Don't tell me that you're going to have the distinction of being the first one here that she has gotten.....

This was not a speech by the petition Project it was a speech made by Ron Paul to Congress.

Was there any other errors in Ron Paul's speech Reader, or just the number of scientists on the speech?

If she chooses not to keep up to date with what Congress is discussing and the speeches made, that's up to her.

Seems awfully negative to me, to just bury your head and right off everything as a conspiracy, when this is happening within Congress.


Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists

June 4, 2009


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/GlobalWarmingJune4.shtml
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Old news? It was presented to Congress on June 4, 2009.

I would suspect in response somewhat to Cap and Trade.

If the items in the speech are incorrect, then by all means, let's debate them.

Nothing could be more timely, with Cap and Trade being debated in both Canada and the US.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If the items in the speech are incorrect, then by all means, let's debate them.

Any other items in the speech that are debatable?

The Science that states that the earth is warming seems to be out of date, but they are still debating it in Congress.

How about this one:

Is rationing use absolutely necessary to stop Global warming?

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.

Seems like this petition may be a little old, but it may just be that the base of their argument was ahead of it's time.

Is the Earth still warming, or has it been cooling in the last few years?
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Is the Earth still warming, or has it been cooling in the last few years?

"That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

"That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

and a year later.. the liberals are still in shock.... the scientists are abandoning the rhetoric for facts..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Reader, you are quite often advising people on PB to pick up on the main point of an article.

What's the main point of this speech? Do you agree with the point or not?
 
Top