32K Scientists reject AGW "consensus"

In today's Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon asks, How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?

Good question. Would more than 31,000 do?

the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

The press conference is set for Monday May 19, at 10:00 AM in Washington, D.C. when Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) will Release the Names of almost 32,000 Scientists Rejecting the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Hypothesis.

Solomon's article contains a concise history of the efforts of an ever increasing number of scientists to counter the greenhouse gas propaganda beginning with the mere 47 who signed the “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming,” back in 1992 decrying “the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action” to the 4,000 signatories (including 72 Nobel Prize winners) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, to the 2001 Oregon Petition:

The Oregon petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

If 17,800 were not enough, perhaps 32,000 will do.

h/t: Icecap.