Global Warming Petitions

I woke up this morning just in time to hear a commentary piece on CBC ranting about how 17,000 scientists had signed a petition saying that there is no conclusive proof that climate change exists, and that based on this we shouldn't spend valuable time, money and legislation on reducing emissions.

Of course, the wonderful thing about radio and broadcast media in general is that you can vaguely cite sources and most of the audience will take it at face value, and even talk about it at the dinner table. Being a responsible listener, I did a quick google search and found another well-documented left-right catfight that has been in progress for some time.

Heartland.org, whose tagline claims "The solution to every public policy problem" has published an Instant Expert's Guide to Global Warming which simultaneously cites 17,000 "Scientists" who signed the Anti-Global Warming Petition, while discrediting some other petition, without naming it or otherwise providing any facts. The list does have an impressive number of PhD's, but the same Instant Expert's Guide does a pretty good job of showing exactly how little those three letters mean these days:

"During the 20th century," writes Dr. Patrick Michaels, "we have already proceeded more than half way to doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Here is what resulted: Life expectancy doubled in the free and eveloped world. The developing world is catching up as their emissions rise. Corn production per acre increased five-fold. The growing season in the coldest latitudes increased slightly, but enough to increase greenness by 10 percent."

All that as a result of emissions, even though they aren't really having an effect! The petition itself also claims that "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." Even though it isn't happening. So go ahead, take your SUV for a Sunday spin, it'll be good for the planet.

This is akin to an argument I remember from when they were clearcutting parts of Washington State while I was growing up: clearcuts create habitat for deer, therefor, they're not really destroying the local ecology. Right.

The Leipzig Declaration sounds a little more credible, but the motivations of the signatories have in some cases been shown to be more political than scientific.

With the petition madness out of the way, what has really been accomplished? Do the 17,000 names on the petition take into account the most recent findings that climate change has accelerated alongside 20th century industrial growth? Who knows? I might venture, however, that science is best left to facts, and petitions to politics. These petitions are a bunch of people who disagree with the Kyoto findings. Great. But names on a list do not scientific conclusions make.