It seems the Oregon Petition has finally reared its ugly head again. The “think tank” (is there a word for the juvenile stage of a think tank?) responsible went so far as to rent out a room at the National Press Club in order to tout its release. As yet, it doesn’t seem to be getting any traction in the mainstream press, which is a pleasant surprise. So why the re-release of a “petition” that has been so widely ridiculed for the last decade? It seems as though there have been some new additions to the list in response to their mailing in October of last year…
The Petition now boasts a spiffy new (well, new anyway) web design and an alleged additional 12,000 signatures. Has the vetting process changed at all, in order to determine whether the signatories are indeed real and have a relevant background and/or publications to make their opinions worth considering? You be the judge:
A random sample (the first five names from the list alphabetically) would be Earl M. Aagaard, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron.
1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).
Compare these to the first five authors alpha listed for the IPCC AR4 WG1 The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change:
2. Robert Adler. NASA Senior Scientist in the Laboratory for Atmospheres and is also currently serving as Project Scientist for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Relevant publications: plenty.
For more consensus-shattering science via petition, I treat you to the Discovery Institute‘s collection of scientists skeptical of evolution, and the 9/11 Truther movement’s collection of architects and engineers that believe explosives may have been used to bring down the WTC towers.
[UPDATE: Chris Colose has more, many more, confirming the pattern.]
[LATE UPDATE: Rabett Run has a nice critique of the paper used by OSIM, courtesy of Mike Powell.]