...
From
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia
Though the group claims more than thirty-thousand signatories across various scientific fields, the authenticity and methods of the petitioners as well as the signatories' credentials have been questioned, and the project has been characterized as a
disinformation campaign engaged in
climate change denial.
Credentials and authenticity
The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned.
Jeff Jacoby promoted the Oregon Institute petition as delegates convened for the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1998. Jacoby, a columnist for
The Boston Globe, said event organizers "take it for granted" that global warming is real when scientists do not agree "that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful" or "that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."
[22] George Woodwell and
John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the
International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."
[23] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".
[24] Spurious names on the list included fictional characters from the television show
M*A*S*H,
[25] the movie
Star Wars,
[24] Spice Girls group member
Geri Halliwell, English naturalist
Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".
[26] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the
Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".
[25] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the
Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."
[27] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.
[28] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying that, although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".
[29]
In 2001,
Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."
Former
New Scientist correspondent
Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character
Brains in
Thunderbirds. Rather, they must
specialize:
NAS incident
A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,
[33] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the
University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".
[34] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."
[34]
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "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
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
[35] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
[35]
Robinson responded in a 1998 article in
Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."
[34] A 2006 article in the magazine
Vanity Fair stated:
) but here's a mirrored copy of it for you...
www.reuters.com
nypost.com
