Overview - Neoconservative Astroturfing

To date, other than emphatic statements about the PhD's of some, the OISM has done virtually nothing to demonstrate that any of these signatories have any credible knowledge of peer-reviewed climate change science. Most claim a physics background of some sort. A few are geophysicists, meteorologists, and biochemists. The rest are of differing backgrounds. Apart from a tiny handful of climatologists, to what degree any of these people have been involved with climate change science is unknown. The OISM web site requires only a name, an address, and a stated degree with each signature. Beyond that, nothing is required that would verify the status of one's background. No information is requested regarding professional affiliations, publications, or information about one's professional experience in any field, much less in climate science. Signatories are not required to name the university their degree was obtained from or even whether or not it is accredited.

It is common for advocates of pseudoscientific views to believe that a PhD immediately qualifies someone to speak on any subject regardless of whether or not they have any direct experience in the field in question (Consider, for instance, the writings of creationists and the way they showcase the PhD's of their advocates, few of whom are involved in actual research or published in peer reviewed journals).

To no one's surprise, within weeks of it's release the Petition had accumulated numerous bogus signatures, including "Dr. Red Wine", characters from the TV show MASH, the author John Grisham, and a "Dr." Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice) whom were are told, has a PhD in microbiology. Arthur Robinson admits that the OISM has been unable to keep pranksters from signing the petition. He claims they are "checking" the credentials of all signatories, but it appears that this is being done only in limited ways. The superficiality of these checks, and the prank signatures in particular, speak for themselves. Sadly, the sloppiness and unprofessional handling of this entire project reveal all too clearly the consequences of allowing public relations and zealotry to take precedence over genuine scientific consensus.

Three years before the OISM Petition Project a similar attempt was made on an international scale. In 1995 an international “Scientific” conference was organized by another group of Far-Right fronts resulting in what has since come to be known as the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. The conference was organized by S. Fred Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and the European Academy for Environmental Affairs in Leipzig, Germany. The SEPP is an ultra-conservative front group for polluting industries and the Wise Use movement, and was started in the early 90's under the auspices of these groups, various ultra-conservative foundations, and the Unification Church (the "Moonies"). Earlier that same year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I, arguably the most authoritative and respected body of climate change researchers in the world today, released its 1995 report on the state of the art on global warming. The report presented the consensus view of the scientific community that human activity is increasing global average atmospheric temperatures in a way that will likely be greatly damaging—a conclusion which stands even stronger today than it did then.

Soon after it was made public the declaration came under fire for questionable signatures. According to the SEPP website, "nearly 100 climate experts" signed the declaration. A subsequent 1996 investigation by the St. Petersburg Times revealed only 79 signatories, many of which had little or no background in climate science. One case in point was Dick Groeber of Springfield, Illinois who founded “Dick’s Weather Service”. Groeber, who has no formal climate science training and never finished a college degree, neverthe less considers himself a “scientist” by virtue his many years of “self-study”.

A revised and updated version of the declaration was released in 1997. The newer version added attacks on the Kyoto Protocols, updates of the scientific references made, and an expanded list of signatories which according to the SEPP totaled some 140. Eventually, the SEPP did concede that "a few of the original signers did not have the 'proper' academic credentials - even though they understand the scientific climate issues quite well. To avoid this kind of smear, we want to restrict the Leipzig Declaration to signers with impeccable qualifications." But further investigation revealed numerous problems with the 1997 signatories as well and SEPP eventually reduced the 140 total to 105. In the end, only 20 signatories were ever identified as having any background at all in climate science, and many of these had ties to polluting industries.

Most of the science the declaration cited in support of its stance is now outdated as well, including the satellite-based troposphere temperature record (which provided the bulk of its “support”). That record has since been found to be in agreement with predictions of global warming (Singer is one of the few remaining scientists even in the skeptic community who is still clinging to the claim that this record “refutes” global warming).

The Leipzig Declaration was one of several attempts by ultra-conservative special interests to dilute that report by presenting an alternate statement which could reposition the label of "scientific consensus" to promote the agenda of these interests. The Declaration failed in this attempt, but it is still important in that they have in fact gained the ear of many politicians and public officials in positions of power, especially. Despite its many scientific and professional shortcomings, the declaration is still being widely cited in Far-Right circles as “proof” the scientific consensus does not support global warming. More disturbing is the fact that since the advent of the Bush administration this circle has expanded to include many conservative policy makers who have cited it as justification for the rollback of environmental protection and global warming mitigation efforts (few of these policy makers have any science education to speak of, and most have been unwilling to accept any feedback from those who do).

As of this writing the sun is setting on the Bush administration’s reign of power. We can only hope that the next presidential election will restore some scientific literacy to the White House and Congress, and campaigns like the Leipzig Declaration will be replaced by scientifically informed policy and higher standards of professionalism.