International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)

2009/03/31

And now, the Orgone Petition

cite as: F. Bi. 2009. And now, the Oregon Orgone Petition. Intl. J. Inact., 2:50–52

The global warming ‘skeptics’ are at it again. RealClimate reported that the neoliberal Cato ‘Institute’ was spamming climate scientists in order to get signatures for its petition against global warming regulation. And now that the petition’s published, we have the International Climate ‘Science’ Coalition claiming that the petition was signed by “over 100 climate scientists”.

Now, the petition has 115 signatories, including cato-petition-1

  1. Charles R. Anderson, a materials analyst;
  2. J. Scott “I ignore all of climate science and I say it’s all wrong!” Armstrong, a marketing professor;
  3. Robert Ashworth, a coal technologist;
  4. Edward F. Blick, a professor of petroleum and geological engineering;
  5. Mark Campbell, a chemistry professor;
  6. Richard “I have a Ph. D.! Honest!” Courtney, a Methodist preacher;
  7. Susan Crockford, an archæozoologist;
  8. James “Orgonomy” DeMeo, whose day job involves, um, working with a type of super-duper psychic energy known as “orgone”;
  9. Michael “global warming is an anti-civilization, anti-nuclear conspiracy!” Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor;
  10. Ivar Giæver, a Nobel Laureate who does research on biophysics and superconductors;
  11. Kesten Green, who does economic forecasting;
  12. William “Aztecs! Kepler! Darwin! Romans!” Happer, another nuclear physicist;
  13. Kevin Kemm, yet another nuclear scientist (what’s up with nuclear scientists?);
  14. James A. Marusek, who is… guess what… yet another nuclear scientist! (sploosh)
  15. Ross McKitrick, an economist; and
  16. Brian Valentine, a petroleum expert.

Basic arithmetic tells us that the signatories clearly do not include “over 100 climate scientists”.

Then again, since this is just another example of climate inactivists trying their best to be wrong, why should this silly petition and its promoters even deserve a serious response? With this in mind, I hereby present to you this poster, by yours truly:

orgone-petition

* * *

Update 2009-04-01: Added a Digg button for this post below, so that you can Digg the above poster. 🙂 Also, Capital Climate finds a number of meteorologist cranks among the signatories.

Another update 2009-04-01: Oops. There are actually 116 signatories, not 112. To make up for this error, I added Anderson, Ashworth, Blick, and Crockford to the above list.

Update 2009-04-02: The Digg widget seems to be broken. I’ve replaced it with a simple link.

Update 2009-04-03: Now with a prettier Digg button. Also, the Cato Institute puts up a hilarious defence of the petition.

Update 2009-04-06: In comments below, John Mashey points out there are 115 names, not 116.

Advertisements

16 Comments »

  1. Orgone? You’ve got to be fucking kidding… also, 1995 called, they want the design of that webpage back.

    I mean, of course, “haha, you silly warmist alarmist, still can’t accept that AGW theory (you know it’s only a theory, right?) is crumbling all around you, and now you resort to trying to discredit the REAL science by CHERRY-PICKING out those scientists who disagree with the mainstream orthodoxy in areas other than climate!!!111!one”

    Comment by Julius — 2009/03/31 @ 19:50 | Reply

  2. The few meteorologists are also on the fringe.

    Comment by CapitalClimate — 2009/04/01 @ 02:20 | Reply

  3. Oh, and here’s how Valentine and his sock puppet “debated” global warming with an actual meteorologist at the WaPo.

    Comment by CapitalClimate — 2009/04/01 @ 02:22 | Reply

  4. Julius:

    I mean, of course, “haha, you silly warmist alarmist, still can’t accept that AGW theory (you know it’s only a theory, right?) is crumbling all around you, and now you resort to trying to discredit the REAL science by CHERRY-PICKING out those scientists who disagree with the mainstream orthodoxy in areas other than climate!!!111!one”

    Tee-hee. 🙂 The “Orgone Petition” nickname aside, I actually think the presence of those nuclear scientists is more interesting.

    CapitalClimate:

    This so-called “debate” won’t mean a THING unless it is given a high-powered “name” to advertise it:
    “Demolition in the District!”
    “Climate Smackdown – Mr. Nobody vs. Mr. Weatherman!”
    “Valentine’s Day Massacre!”
    Posted by: Louisa53 | March 17, 2009 1:31 PM

    I have heard Mr. Valentine speak at a discussion panel on climate change.The man is a formidable debater.
    Posted by: Louisa53 | March 17, 2009 6:02 PM

    Mr valentine seems a bit naïve, but I don’t think Mr Ryan would fare very well in a debate with Valentine
    Posted by: Louisa53 | March 19, 2009 8:50 AM

    For what it’s worth if anything I think I might advise Mr Ryan against “debating” anything with Mr V
    Posted by: Louisa53 | March 20, 2009 2:17 PM

    Duh.

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/04/01 @ 05:06 | Reply

  5. In addition to the obvious question, ie, just what qualifications makes one a climate expert, I have problems with severral of the names on the list of signatories. First off, there’s the guy who works for the ClearStack Combustion Corportion. Not too whiffy. And then there’s the dear “retired” gent identified only as Upon Tyne. Clearly this is a typo or proofreading error, but I’d really like to know which side of the smokestack Mr. Upon Tyne’s bread is buttered.

    Comment by Grace Nearing — 2009/04/01 @ 07:34 | Reply

  6. Grace Nearing:

    First off, there’s the guy who works for the ClearStack Combustion Corportion. Not too whiffy.

    :-B

    And then there’s the dear “retired” gent identified only as Upon Tyne.

    It should be “John Ferguson, Ph. D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne (retired)”. The HTML version has it munged up.

    (The original PDF also has a few typos of its own: “Pilmer” instead of “Plimer”, and “Akusofu” instead of “Akasofu”.)

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/04/01 @ 07:45 | Reply

  7. Some additional notes:
    a) I’m not sure where you get 116; columns 1,2, and 4 have 29 names; column 3 has 28. Did I miss one somewhere?

    Also, by my count so far, at least 37 of the signers are Retired.

    b) Some additional notes on the 16 on your list already:

    4. Blick is retired, and is also a (Young-Earth) creationist, has written several books on that.
    See Rabett Run.

    10. Giaever is Emeritus/Retired; also, for a while, was sponsored by Norway’s Statoil.

    8. DeMeo is Retired.

    12. Happer is also Chairman of The George C. Marshall Insitute.

    13. Kemm looks more like a motivational speaker and business consultant, althouhg he certainly did do nuclear. You may recall that at one point, nuclear physics was the primo discipline to go into … it just didn’t work out as well as some may have expected.

    14. Marusek is Retired, and looks to be more of an engineer & manager than scientist:
    his background.

    ====
    And then, we have a few more:

    – Akasofu is a Retired aurora physicist

    – Arthur G Anderson Retired from IBM R&D managment in 1984.

    – Colin Barton, Retired from CSIRO

    – John Blaylock is a Retired Los Alamos person, appears to have been a high-performance computing expert.

    – John Brignell is Retired Prof of Industrial Instrumentation.

    – Robert Essenhigh is an Emeritus Prof, most of his work was on coal combustion. CATO doesn’t note the retirement.

    – Christopher Essex is a mathematician at U of Western Ontario & co-author with McKitrick of “Taken by Storm”. If this is up-to-date, his publication record has stalled in alst 10 years.

    – John Ferguson is certainly Retired; I can’t find any mention at Newcastle, and Ferguson is nontrivial to find.

    – Lee Gerhard is a Retired geologist.

    – James Goodridge is Retired California Climatologist. [that one’s odd]

    – Vincent Gray is a Retired NZ Coal guy

    – William Gray is Reired.

    – Kenneth Green is at American Enterprise Institute; much of his career has been spent working for Reason, Fraser, etc.

    – Howard Hayden is a Retired nuclear physicist (they’re everywhere)

    – Ben Herman is a Retired atmospheric scientist

    – Martin Hertzberg is a Retired US Navy physical chemist/combustion expert.

    – Bernd Huettner is a laser physicist

    – Doug Hoffman is a computer scientist

    – Neil Hutton is a Retired petroleum geologist, long with Texaco

    – Steve Japar is a Retired Ford Motor Co chemist

    – Sten Kaijser is a Retired mathematician

    -Wibjorn Karlen is a Retired physical geogprapher

    – Joel Kauffman is a retired chemist, who has often written for the fringe science Journal of Scientific Exploration, and one of whose book reviews refers to Monckton as a “talented physicist”.

    – David Kear is a Retired NZ geologist

    – Robert Knox is a Retired physicist.

    – Roar Larsen is a petroileum guy.

    – James Lea is a peteroleum guy.

    – Cliff Ollier is a Retired geologist

    – Garth Partridge is Retired.

    – Ian Plimer is a Retired mining geologist.

    – Brian Pratt is a petroleum geologist, long with Petro-Canada

    – John Reinhard is/was at Ore Pharmaceuticals and/or Brain Insights

    – Peter Ridd is a marine physicist

    – Peter Salonius is a soil microbiologist

    – Roy Spencer is also a creationist.

    Comment by John Mashey — 2009/04/05 @ 21:38 | Reply

  8. John Mashey:

    a) I’m not sure where you get 116; columns 1,2, and 4 have 29 names; column 3 has 28. Did I miss one somewhere?

    Oops, thanks. I got 116 from the HTML list and forgot that “Upon Tyne” is a bogus name.

    – James Goodridge is Retired California Climatologist. [that one’s odd]

    Hmm… I wonder if we’ll be hearing more from him in the future?

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/04/06 @ 03:38 | Reply

  9. D. C. Sessions makes another observation:

    WRT argumentum ad hominem, they [Cato] can’t have it both ways: either the credentials of their “100 scientists” are immaterial (in which case, why not just poll 100 people on the street?) or else they are — in which case, questioning those “scientists” is apt. Since they pulled the argumentum ad verecundiam, the argumentum ad hominem is in fact a direct rebuttal.

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/04/08 @ 13:03 | Reply

  10. one more retired nuclear physicist: Antonino Zichichi, author of I, God and Galileo (in that order)
    http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonino_Zichichi

    Comment by l'oca s. — 2009/04/09 @ 18:28 | Reply

  11. l’oca s.:

    Oh wow. Nuclear physicists — they’re everywhere aren’t they…

    About Zichichi’s writings, I get this from the English Wikipedia:

    Galilei, Divin Uomo: as many book reviewers have pointed out, this is a book with an ideological agenda, in which objectivity is sacrificed to the demonstration of the thesis that Galileo was a deeply committed Catholic more than a scientist and was therefore disposed to renounce his scientific convinctions for his faith.

    I hope Zichichi doesn’t use the usual GALILEO!!! excuse when justifying his crank beliefs.

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/04/09 @ 19:37 | Reply

  12. I’ve annotated all 115 Cato signers on my Great Big List of Climate Scientists and Petition Signers, and I’ve included a separate page listing
    just Cato signers. They have 33 people who show 20 or more matches on the word “climate” in Google Scholar and at the other end, 33 with zero; their median number of papers matching “climate” is just 5. The median for IPCC AR4wg1 contributing authors is 93, for contrast.
    Also, Google Scholar is pretty generous in their indexing; they include E&E, and even just getting a letter published in an indexed journal saying “climate change is rubbish” would count as one “paper” for these counts.

    Comment by Jim Prall — 2009/10/05 @ 22:39 | Reply

  13. Jim Prall notes that I have done work for Exxon, which is true. However, I have received more income from photovoltaics and wind power companies than from oil companies, so I have no income bias for the use of fossil fuels and against the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Like everyone, if restrictions are made on the use of fossil fuels, I will pay higher energy costs.

    I am not a climate scientist, but I do know a good deal about making scientific judgments about complex physical phenomena. I am a physicist who works with infra-red, UV, and light radiation; the heat capacity and other thermal effects of materials; and the absorption and release of CO2 from materials to mention a few relevant areas of expertise. If the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming were correct, it is certainly reasonable for me to believe that I am someone supporters of that theory should be able to convince of that. On the contrary, I have read a great deal of the work and found it to be severely lacking, while the science of climate based on natural effects is much more convincing.

    This constant business of name calling or trying to argue from authority rather than from scientific principles simply convinces me further that the science that supposedly backs man-made global warming is deficient.

    One of the reasons many scientists in opposition are retired is because they are the ones with sufficient time to read and review what is the basis for the claims of catastrophic global warming. Another is that there is a witch hunt mentality in our universities these days, which keeps many who are in opposition silent until they are retired. Still another reason is that much of the money available for climate research is earmarked for those who favor AGW, which is very popular with politicians who want more power.

    Comment by Charles R. Anderson — 2009/10/31 @ 03:01 | Reply

    • However, I have received more income from photovoltaics and wind power companies than from oil companies, so I have no income bias for the use of fossil fuels and against the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

      OK.

      I am not a climate scientist, but I do know a good deal about making scientific judgments about complex physical phenomena. I am a physicist who works with infra-red, UV, and light radiation; the heat capacity and other thermal effects of materials; and the absorption and release of CO2 from materials to mention a few relevant areas of expertise. If the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming were correct, it is certainly reasonable for me to believe that I am someone supporters of that theory should be able to convince of that. […]

      […] there is a witch hunt mentality in our universities these days, which keeps many who are in opposition silent until they are retired.

      In short, you’re saying, ‘I’m a physicist, and I know a lot, therefore global warming is false. And it’s a huge conspiracy.’

      Why can’t you give some actual scientific arguments against the global warming theory? Why do you have nothing but argument by authority and conspiracy theories?

      trying to argue from authority rather than from scientific principles

      Where exactly are your “scientific principles” against global warming?

      What a hypocrite.

      Comment by frankbi — 2009/10/31 @ 04:17 | Reply

  14. (Rod Eaton: no trolling with irrelevant talking points.)

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/10/31 @ 17:12 | Reply

  15. (Charles R. Anderson: It might help your credibility if you don’t spew mutually contradictory talking points. The Earth is cooling, and the Earth is warming but other planets are also warming, and temperature records are unreliable anyway?)

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/12/27 @ 07:22 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: