UPDATE: More recent, albeit somewhat different debunking at:
What if the Oregon Petition names were real?
.
This fraud is the source of the climate change Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc “scientists have signed a petition saying climate change is not real etc.
The Oregon Petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts , the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition.
It’s even been debunked at the Skeptics Society (the irony) “Misleading by Petition Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming? For a thorough debunking of the alleged science accompanying the Petition
- Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux
- Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (Wikipedia)
- Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (SourceWatch)
- The Oregon Deception Project…..
- Flawed Oregon Petition Rises Again
- Oregon petition warmed over
- Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey
- The Oregon Petition
- Debunking the Oregon Petition Project
- debunked Oregon Petition on global warming
- Ignore Oregon petition
- Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition
- RealClimate scientists take on latest manifestation of global warming disinformation campaign
- Petitioning on climate, part 1
- Petitioning on climate, part 2
Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren’t many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age – like there’s been no updates in the science recently?
Quote from National Academy of Sciences
“The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.” Source
Some of the alleged signatories are actually dead.
Of tobacco apologist Frederick Seitz see (enough said)
Oh yeah, here’s another example of Denier math (19=500) when counting “skeptics”
And on and on; it’s a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone’s time.
—-
Mike,
A little snippet I picked up recently:
In 2006 there were over 22 million scientists and engineers in the USA. The Oregon Petition, allegedly, signed up just 31,000 of them. – http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/#tab1
I think that gives some perspective to how insignificant it is and also why Seitz / Robinson declined to say how many petition cards had been mailed (sorry, can’t find that interview now).
Note: 22 million out of 3oo million population (1 in 13) seems a little high, but the source is credible.
[…] Denier petition #1: OISM/Oregon Petition, and here (Update: Another sad attempt from […]
[…] Denier petition #1: OISM/Oregon Petition, and here (Update: Another sad attempt from […]
@DavidOne: Interesting figures. I think you misread one part though.
For the purposes of the Oregon Petition, there were 22 million people eligible to sign in 2006. Since OISM doesn’t mind having dead people on the list, the number would be higher as some scientists and engineers (as they count things) died between 1997 and 2006. Of that 22 million, they got only slightly over 0.1% response rate. Most junk mailing would be depressed by such poor turnout.
The 1 in 13 sanity check of yours is where I think you went astray. You’re thinking about employment. The figure for that is about 5 million, at the same source, for 1 in 60. The 1 in 13 is fraction of country who ever took a degree that was in or ‘near’ science and engineering. At less than 8%, that seems plausible.
The ’22 million scientists and engineers’ appears absurd on its face (especially in light of the fact that the total US workforce is only about 150 million). The caption at the bottom of the figures cited at nsf.gov provides a clear indication why: “Scientists and engineers refers to *all persons who have received a batchelor’s degree or higher in a science, engineering (S&E), or S&E-related field.” So this would technically include just about anyone with a BS degree (computer programmers, some accountants, doctors, dentists, engineers of ALL disciplines, etc.) In addition, the figure ALSO includes people who DON’T have a sciene or engineering related degree but work in a related capacity (which could theoretically include IT managers, plumbers, oil rig workers, auto mechanics, etc.) Now 22 million is starting to look a bit more reasonable. I suspect the number of people that actually have enough knowledge in the environmental science field to even comment on this would number only in the tens of thousands, so I think the implication that 21 million, 930 thousand scientists and engineers chose to reject this petition is slightly exaggerated.
It’s the OISM’s rules, not mine. My only contribution was to consider how many people are eligible. Their rule is indeed “… all persons who have received a batchelor’s degree or higher in a science, engineering (S&E), or S&E-related field.” They do not limit even merely to people who are actually working in such fields. See my posts, linked to above in the original, — petitioning on climate 1, and petitioning on climate 2 — which provide the links directly to the OISM’s criteria.
By their criteria for eligibility, there are something like 22 million people qualified to sign. Only about 30,000 did so (a number inflated by counting people now dead — if NSF did so as well, the 22 million would be even larger). If your complaint is that you don’t believe 22 million people ever took a degree in a broadly defined STEM (science/tech/engineering/math) area … well, with 5 million currently working in such areas, it only requires that about 75% of people who ever got a degree there, have moved to working on other things. Given what I’ve seen in STEM hiring and retention the last 30 years, that’s plausible. 30,000 out of 5 million is also quite poor response in any case.
OISM explicitly did not limit signing only to those whom you think might have enough knowledge in the field to comment on the science. Myself, I’d limit it a bit more — to those who have published in the scientific literature on climate (albeit any aspect of climate). The overwhelming majority of the OISM’s 30,000 would be eliminated by both of us. But they, and their fans, are not concerned about informed opinion. Nor about the discovery that only about 0.1% of people OISM considers eligible to sign have done so.
[…] throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic […]
[…] … The great Petition Fraud http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&fea … https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d … The only thing more ridiculous than the "petition" is the idiotic collection of […]
Moved to here.
S2
As per the comments policy this has been moved to “The Dunce’s Corner“
[…] It believes the “Oregon Petition” is […]
[…] It believes the “Oregon Petition” is […]
[…] throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic […]
[…] generale, forse nella speranza di far dimenticare le sue bufale sul clima tratte dall'Oregon Petition e altre ancora più comiche […]
[…] It believes the “Oregon Petition” is […]
[…] It believes the “Oregon Petition” is […]
[…] It believes the “Oregon Petition” is […]