I don't know why you didn't just post this since it is so short.
Oregon Petition:
This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.
Oregon Petition:
Quote
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, 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.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, 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.
This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.
Learn about the Oregon Petition, the background of its signers, the deception as to the credentials of the signers, its connection with Frederick Seitz, it's masquerade through its look as a document published by a particular scientific organization, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition
There are plenty more dissections of the petition if you feel so inclined to question the sources of your skepticism.
No, please find where there is a contradiction. I want to find out if you know what you are talking about or not.
Actually, I don't know what you are talking about. The premise of the Oregon Petition is signed largely by dentists, surgeons, engineers and others who cannot actually support the conclusions the Oregon Petition puts forth. Thus, I ask you to tell me why the Oregon Petition felt compelled to seek out the signatures of non-experts and then imply that the petition was comprised of climate science experts. Please address that. I have provided you with a list of the signers, and in general, when you google their names, the expectation is that if they were experts, published papers on climate science would appear as results. But that does not occur. Furthermore, please address Frederick Seitz's involvement, given his history.