Now let's take a look at the Oregon Institute petition. Joseph Bast writes in the third section, first paragraph:
Mr. Pope also talked a little about global warming, which is the fourth thing I’ve learned something about. The audience nearly shouted him down when he claimed, during the question and answer session, that 95 percent of climatologists believe mankind is causing global warming. The audience was right: 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Institute petition saying there is no need to adopt policies to prevent or postpone climate change. The last survey of state climatologists in the U.S. found a large majority of them didn’t believe global warming was a threat.
First, Bast claims that a climate change scientist, who is trying to tell the audience that 95 percent of climatologists stand behind Global Warming, was shouted down by the audience. How is being shouted down significant and relevant, given the venue? Answer: it is not significant.
But Bast claims it is significant, because of the Oregon Institute petition. What is that, exactly? Well, apparently, it is 17,000 (actually 31,000 by the latest count) scientists making the claim that Global Warming research and its results show no real indication of actual global warming. That would sound like a pretty compelling document, don't you think? Unless of course, we can call into question the integrity of the petition. If we can, then it would seem to be pretty damning for those using it as a vehicle to undermine Global Warming research.
We can start by actually looking at the names of those who signed the petition. It stands to reason that if the signers of the petition are climatologists and well published, any Google search of their names would turn up published research by them. Certainly, there main call to fame wouldn't be their appearance on the petition, would it?
Do your own random Google searches, if you will. Here's the list:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htmWhat did Scientific American have to say about the petition? ( source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition )
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
Apparently, the deeper you want to dig, the more you'll find that the Oregon Institution petition was a sad and misguided attempt (and obviously dishonest) to create an official sounding document which would hopefully show that there is significant disagreement amongst climatologists in regard to anthropogenic global warming. That's bad enough. But then we have individuals and "institutes" (such as Bast and Heartland) who wish to trot it out as being the final say so.
Just imagine: organizations like Heartland (which we will continue to expose as being a propaganda machine which disseminates false and misleading information), can and will provide their mailing lists of fervent anti-believers in real science to petition creators, encouraging signatures of PhDs - never mind that it's a PhD in veterinary science, who happens to be a supporter of organizations like Heartland, as an example - so that a document such as the Oregon Institute petition can then be cited in their propaganda.
If you wish to see how another organization (Science Magazine) interprets whether there is a consensus on Global Warming, you can read this article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full 
