The Oregon petition seems to be getting a small revival in the press and blogosphere lately, including in the comments here. I don’t have a guide article for that, though I suppose I should. So much has been written about it, I don’t know if I have anything original to say.
Some example critiques are from Scientific American:
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.
and John Cook’s Skeptical Science:
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Scien ce from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
A newer article from Information is Beautiful takes the numbers at face value and gives a great visual representation of just how large (or not) the number 31000 is in this context.
But by far the most compelling tear down of that fraudulently conceived and promoted document is one of greenman3610’s latest Climate Crocks of the Week:
Really good stuff, no? (Did everybody catch the archival footage of Lord Monkton dancing near the end?)