Hahahah! The Oregon Petition?
Anyone who wants to see an expose of the scam of the 1998 Oregon Petition, can watch this video by science journalist Peter Sinclair who now writes for Yale Climate Connections.
32000 Scientists | The Oregon Petition
It's also not surprising to learn that Dr Frederick Seitz (a previous president of the NAS in the 1960's), who wrote a cover letter for the fake 'paper' sent out with the Oregon "petition", was a highly paid consultant for the Tobacco industry for many years and directed 45 million dollars in funding for "studies" that dishonestly attempted to show no connection between smoking and health problems. He moved on to doing the same sort of thing for the fossil fuel industry about climate science as co-founder and chairman of the George C Marshall Institute.
In an
interview in 2006 with Vanity Fair, Seitz was asked about the morality of taking money and shilling for the tobacco industry. Seitz is quoted as saying he was comfortable with taking the money "as long as it's green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue."
The corrupt "scientists" are the ones like Seitz who are paid well to cast doubt and lie about the harmful effects of smoking tobacco or about climate science, not your average atmospheric physicist or oceanographer or scientists from many different fields doing research involving climate science.
It doesn't bode well when the originators of the Oregon Petition used deliberate deception right from the very start, prompting the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to release a statement to clear up the deception.
Here is the National Academy of Sciences statement about the Oregon petition, including addressing the dishonest tactic used by the organisers in using an op ed from the Wall Street Journal and an un-published 'paper' designed to look like a research paper from the NAS:
Home | The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine | National-Academies.org
STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION
April 20, 1998
The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 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.
The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.
In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded 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." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COUNCIL
