| THE ANTI-KYOTO PETITION PROJECT The Kyoto accord is a multi-national agreement to limit "greenhouse gas" release early in the twenty-first century. It's a treaty signed in December, 1997, at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan. In the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists were mailed official-looking documents asking them to join other scientists in signing a petition against the Kyoto accord. The documents below tell the story of how the scientific community responded. The Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Geophysical Union are the "good guys"--the widely-respected scientists who opposed the petition and who believe that the Kyoto protocol will help to slow global climate problems.
[1] From ECOLOG-L e-mail listserver, March, 1998: Dear Colleagues, This message from the Union of Concerned Scientists is to caution you about a petition effort to reject the Kyoto Protocol that is circulating throughout colleges, universities, and research institutions nationwide. Nadine Lymn, Director of Public Affairs for the ESA, has granted permission to post this message. Several scientists have recently notified UCS about this petition urging scientists to undermine the newly negotiated climate change treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The KP requires industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on average by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the first "commitment period" between 2008 and 2012.The petition is being distributed through a mass mailing that includes deceptive materials and serious misrepresentations of climate science. The petition has no identified organizational or institutional sponsor and is known only as the "Petition Project." What is the Petition Project exactly? A petition, distributed through a mass mailing, urging the US government to reject the KP. It consists of a petition signature card with a brief anti- Kyoto Protocol statement; a short letter signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz; a reprint of a 12 Apr 97 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth"; and an eight-page article entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" which mimics the format of a published journal article even though it has NOT been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor accepted for publication. The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute - identified as the article authors’ affiliations - to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project’s conclusions reflect the authors’ political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it. ***On the "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide:"
*** Scientific resources for accurate information on climate change:
The Union of Concerned Scientists can be contacted by email message at ssi@ucsusa.org or by snailmail at 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 (attn. Katie Mogelgaard). with friendly regards to all,
[2] Another posting from ECOLOG-L e-mail listserver, March, 1998: Regarding the pseudo-paper many of us may have received, care of the Oregon Institute of whatever-they-decided-to-call-it:
Cheers George Robinson (no relation to the phony paper's authors)
[3] And yet another posting from ECOLOG-L e-mail listserver, April, 1998: Charles Welden wrote: Well guess what! By no coincidence at all, Arthur Robinson, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and one of the authors of that now-famous global warming review, is coming to my college to give a presentation. The audience will be scientists and laymen - no experts in climatology. I think it's good to air opposing viewpoints, but I don't want the audience to go away thinking Robinson represents the scientific consensus. I would like to be able to ask some rather pointed questions, based on the latest research in the field - which is not my own. Can anyone suggest an up-to-date, peer-reviewed synopsis of the state of knowledge on global warming? aTdHvAaNnKcSe Charles Welden Welden@sou.edu [answer supplied by William H. Settle, Ph.D.is below (it's pretty long. A similar, but shorter responsible response to anti-environmentalist arguments can be found at: http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost.asp?s2=opinion&f=990902/68661.html ]
from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
***************** EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ******************
ISSUE: This alert is a follow-up to the SSI Info-Alert sent to you on March 20. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute have released the results of their Petition Project at a press conference today. They have claimed to have more than 15,000 petition signers and are using these numbers in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with the public and policymakers. Your comments as a scientist are crucial to counter this diversionary tactic.
ACTION: Monitor your local newspaper for coverage of the Petition Project’s release, and write a letter-to-the-editor (LTE) in response, if you see a story.
MAIN MESSAGE: Contrary to the petition’s misleading claims, there is an strong consensus in the world’s scientific community that the threat of global warming is very real and action is needed immediately.
DEADLINE: Monitor your paper this week and send your LTE within two days of the story’s appearance.
******************************************
*** THE ISSUE ***
You will recall from the March 20 Info-Alert that a petition urging the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol was circulated throughout colleges, universities, and research institutions nationwide. (If you did not receive this Info- Alert, or are a new SSI member and would like a copy, send a message to SSI Organizer Katie Mogelgaard at <ssi@ucsusa.org ). The petition was distributed through a mass mailing, which consisted of a petition signature card with a brief anti-Kyoto Protocol statement; a short letter signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz; a reprint of a 12/4/97 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth;" and an eight-page piece entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" -- which mimics the format of a published Proceedings of the National Academy of Science article even though it has not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor accepted for publication.
The Petition Project was apparently organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) <http://www.oism.org and the George C. Marshall Institute. Dr. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) <http://www.sepp.org has been advertising the Project as well. Petition Project organizers now claim they have gathered more than 15,000 signatures from "basic and applied scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees." They released the Petition results at a press conference on Monday, April 20, hoping to show a lack of scientific consensus on the threat of climate change in general and opposition to the Kyoto Protocol in particular -- the most significant policy instrument currently available to address the threat.
A press release from SEPP quotes Dr. Seitz as saying: "The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe.' The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda."
The Petition Project effort should be seen for what it really is - an unfortunate attempt based on false and misleading information to promote the OISM/MI/SEPP non- scientific agenda to scrap actions to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The international community has accepted the IPCC's conclusions that global warming is a problem with potentially serious consequences and has begun to move forward on a plan of action. The Petition Project is intended to divert attention from the clear warnings of the world's leading scientists in order to postpone actions that could reduce the risks of global warming.
Should the Petition Project garner much press coverage, it is likely to confuse the public about the issue and will certainly give additional fodder to Congressional skeptics who threaten to block ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. If a story runs in your local paper, you can help counter these efforts by emphasizing the IPCC's credibility and by keeping the attention on the science.
*** THE ACTION ***
-- Monitor your local newspaper for coverage of the Petition Project's release; and, if you see a story, write a letter- to-the-editor (LTE) in response.
If the story runs, it will most likely appear in Tuesday's paper. It may, however, show up in your paper's science section or on a special feature page. We might also expect the organizers to launch an op-ed campaign, so check the editorial pages as well.
-- MAIN MESSAGE: CONTRARY TO THE PETITION'S MISLEADING CLAIMS, THERE IS A STRONG CONSENSUS IN THE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING IS VERY REAL AND ACTION IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY.
If a story does appear, read it carefully to determine how to best respond. Some reporters, for example, will themselves be highly skeptical of the petition, while others - especially in the smaller or more conservative papers - may seize upon petition results with great fanfare. You will need to customize your response, supporting a critical story and challenging an uncritical one. Remember, however, to keep your letter focused on the science, on the IPCC, and on the usefulness of the Kyoto Protocol to begin the process of controlling the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
-- TIMING: Monitor your paper this week and send your LTE within two days of the story's appearance.
We recommend that you watch your paper carefully for this story for the rest of the week. If a story does appear, gauge your response carefully and send your LTE as soon as possible - it is much more likely to be published if it is sent the day of the story or shortly thereafter. Many papers now accept LTEs via email or fax. The address to send the LTE is usually found on the Letters page of the paper, or call the newspaper for information. Be sure to include your name and phone number with your LTE.
*** SUPPORTING MESSAGES ***
These are the same messages you received in the previous Info-Alert. We thought you might find it convenient to have them restated here for the purposes of writing an effective response to any article about the Petition Project that may appear in your paper.
-- The "review article" accompanying the mailing is NOT a peer-reviewed journal article, despite its apparently deceptive formatting. Nor is it likely that it could be published in a mainstream science journal due to its extensive use of selective, false, and misleading material.
-- The "review article" contains all the usual misstatements about global warming popular with the skeptic community. It contains, for example,
* An oft-quoted but thoroughly rebutted and discredited "comparison" of satellite data with "an IPCC" climate model (in fact, the model was not an IPCC model nor was it appropriate for such a comparison in the first place).
* The short-term satellite data purporting to show a global cooling trend since 1979. Not only is this time frame far too short to be climatically relevant, the data is used without citing the Geophysical Research Letters article (Jones PD [1994] Recent Warming in Global Temperature Series. GRL. Vol. 21 #12 p1149-1152) showing that, when corrected for El Nino and volcanic activity, the satellite record shows the same warming trend as the surface record. The same GRL paper shows that longer term radiosonde data (often cited as confirming the accuracy of the satellites) shows a warming trend, with or without correction, consistent with the century long surface temperature record.
* The myth that solar activity can fully account for the observed warming trend. Changes in the sun's output can influence the Earth's climate but the sun is only one component affecting terrestrial climate. The preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that the sun's influence is less than one-fifth of the human-related climate influences, such as emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and sulfate aerosols, land use changes, and ozone depletion.
* The misleading assertion that "as atmospheric CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase." The plant fertilization effect of elevated CO2 has only been demonstrated in laboratory conditions when plants have unlimited access to water and nutrients. The long term ecosystem effects are unknown. However, changes in precipitation and temperature related to climate change may have adverse effects (on soil moisture, disease and insect infestations) that could negate any gains from CO2 fertilization.
-- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 1995 Second Assessment Report (SAR) reviewed the scientific research on climate change and concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." The SAR was based on the analysis of over 2000 articles from the relevant literature. Hundreds of scientific and technical experts were involved in preparing the report, and literally thousands more were engaged to provide objective peer-review. Where competing views were present, they were reconciled through peer-review if possible; when consensus was unachievable, the disagreements were characterized and the issues for future clarifying research were identified. Thus, the SAR should be seen for what it is: a massive, policy-neutral review of the current state of understanding of climate change science.
-- Contrary to the Petition Project's contention, the Kyoto Protocol is an important beginning to the decades-long international effort to prevent serious global warming. It requires industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on average by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the first "commitment period" between 2008 and 2012. It will lead to important initiatives promoting clean energy and transportation technology both here in the US and abroad.
*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***
The following letter was submitted to the Wall Street Journal in December 1997 (but not published) in response to the Robinsons' misleading editorial. It was written by Thomas Karl (Senior Scientist, NOAA - National Climatic Data Center), Kevin Trenberth (Head, Climate Analysis Section, NCAR) and James Hansen (Director, NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies) In an effort organized by Ozone Action in response to the Petition Project, this letter has been endorsed and circulated by a prominent group of scientists. This group consisted of F. Sherwood Rowland (1995 Nobel Laureate, past president of AAAS), John Holdren (President's Committee of Advisors on Sci. and Tech.), George Woodwell (Woods Hole Research Center), Harold Mooney (Stanford University), Peter Raven (Co-Director, National Biological Survey), and Jane Lubchenco (past president of AAAS and ESA). ============== "Op-ed science a myth: Global warming is happening."
The recent article by the chemists, Robinson and Robinson, appearing in the Wall Street Journal's Op-ed section on Thursday, December 4, 1997 "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth" claims that "there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures." The title and the article itself contain many factual errors, unsubstantiated claims, and misleading statements. We enumerate some of these:
* Robinson and Robinson state. "The rise in [carbon dioxide] probably results from human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, although this is not certain." On the contrary, there is no doubt that the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is due to human activities as well as the increase in other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, ozone in the troposphere, and sulfur hexafluoride. What's more, scientific evidence shows that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, can remain in the atmosphere for centuries.
* Robinson and Robinson state that the global warming hypothesis is no longer tenable, and that scientists have been able to test it carefully and it no longer holds up. A review of the scientific literature reveals this simply is not true. First, there is no question that adding greenhouse gases will change the climate. There is a greenhouse effect. Second, man-made causes play a role. Most climate change detection studies find a strong likelihood, a 95% chance, that the pattern and magnitude of global warming is related to man-made causes.
* Robinson and Robinson state that the highest temperatures occurred about 1940. They further state that during the past 20 years, satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to decrease. Unfortunately, the Robinsons' discussion is misleading. There are several salient facts to consider: (1) Near-surface temperatures where we live, work, and grow our food, reveal that through 1996, 1995 was the warmest year. (2) Seven of the ten warmest years on record (since 1853, when instrumental records begin) have all occurred in the past ten years. (3) During 1997, temperatures over the land are at near-record high levels as computed by both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Moreover, the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office projects 1997 to be the warmest since 1853 when both land and ocean data are combined. (4) Near- surface temperatures have increased by about 1 degree F over the past century. (5) High above the surface of the planet, one satellite temperature record (made up of contributions from nine different satellites) that averages data between about 5,000 and 30,000 feet in altitude shows some slight cooling since 1979, but the same satellite, averaging over a greater layer of the atmosphere between about 10,000 and 50,000 feet, shows warming over the same period. Moreover, weather balloons with a longer history show significant warming when they are analyzed further back in time e.g., after 1957. (6) Lastly, extensive analysis of paleoclimatic data from tree rings, ice cores, and other sources suggest that Twentieth Century temperatures are definitely higher than any century since 1400 AD. Prior to this time, global coverage is incomplete.
The scientific community has established an extensive peer- review process where well-qualified experts can assess and test the veracity of scientific claims. In atmospheric sciences, there are dozens of high-quality scientific journals with a long history of profound articles. An incorrect major scientific claim would be extremely difficult to maintain because scientists earn their reputation by developing better explanations of observed phenomena. We know of no major scientific articles since the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," that directly challenges this conclusion. On the contrary, improved analyses, data sets, and models continue to support Global Warming as a real phenomenon.
We may agree with Robinson and Robinson on one point. There may be more serious issues than global warming that threaten continued advances in the quality of life for humankind. One of these is the attempt by Robinson and Robinson to misinform the general public about the scientific process and what is known and unknown in the frontiers of science.
Thomas R Karl, Senior Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center Kevin Trenberth, Head, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research James Hansen, Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Institute for Space Studies ================ NOTE: Please let us know if your paper carries a story about the Petition Project, and fax or mail us a copy, if possible. If you send a letter-to-the-editor in response, please send us a "blind copy." (A blind copy simply means that you do not indicate anywhere on your letter that you are sending a copy to us.) Send to: ssi@ucsusa.org or (617- 864-9405 - fax) or UCS, 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 (attn. Katie Mogelgaard).
-- ********************************** William H. Settle, Ph.D. Agricultural Ecologist
FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia Jl Jati Padang No 38B Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia
Phone/fax: 62-21-788-32605 ********************************** |
back to top /\/\/\/\ back to Bio103 homepage/\/\/\/\
back to ECOLOGY page