The Heidelberg Appeal

Back in 1992 a petition began circulating throughout the scientific community. This petition was drafted in response to the "growing concern" of global warming. Check it out here. Despite it's 4000+ signatories, including several nobel prize winners, it's largely been ignored by the global warming doom and gloomers who have managed to take control of the discussion and use it get rich, influence politics and convince people that they need to be told how to live "or else". The poorest countries have used global warming to demand the wealth of richer nations. The Chinese have used it to justify their one child per family policy. Businessmen and corporations have used it to get rich by convincing companies and governments that their technologies are "better" even though they're much more costly and inefficient. The super rich global warming doomers have even used it to justify their hypocritical extravagent lifestyles by claiming that their business dealings and investments offset their much larger than average carbon footprints. Scientists themselves use it to get grants so that they can afford to continue their "research". Meanwhile, this tight knit niche of scientists colludes amongst themselves and figures out ways to discredit and margilize anyone with a dissenting opinion.

Here's the appeal. It's short and sweet but should make sense to everyone. If you're actually honest then it's blatantly obvious that those trying to push the global warming agenda would happily wipe their ass with this because they have so much to gain by convincing the masses that it's actually happening, that it's our fault and that we have to do something to stop it.

The Heidelberg Appeal

We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.

We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to
scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.

We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and
has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by
increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. We full subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a
universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.

But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on
irrational preconceptions.

We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity,
and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind.

We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of
future generations.

We intend to assert science's responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.

We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by
pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data.

We draw everybody's attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which
matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and
avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their
dignity.

The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose
instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself,
overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases.

Then of course there's the Global Climate Change Petition that was signed by 30,0000 American scientists. This was a much more anti global warming document. Since only about 500 or so of the scientists were actually involved in the field of climatology in some way and it takes aim at the actual science of global warming (unlike the Heidelberg Appeal which just urges people to follow real facts and the scientific process) it doesn't have as much credibility.

Obviously, I'm in the "global warming deniers" group. Man-made global warming is overstated. There's as much evidence to prove this as there is evidence to prove AGW. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't turn our thermostats down in the winter or up in the summer. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a bike or the bus when we don't really need to drive a car. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't recycle. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to become as self sufficient as possible. What it means is that our leaders shouldn't use this as an excuse to tell us how we need to live our lives by artificially regulating everything to "avert a crisis". It means that scientists should stop trying to find ways to skew facts to fit their agenda. It means that the powers that be need to be open and transparent and stop treating us like stupid little kids. Be straight with me. Don't try to scare me. My natural reaction to any threat is to get defensive. It's the same for a lot of people. The debate isn't over. Global warming dissenters aren't flat earthers or holocaust deniers. When you have to resort to tactics like insults, fear mongering and outright threats because you can't argue on the merit of your argument then there's obviously something wrong and it won't be long before people start to wake up. Hopefully it happens before these morons in Copenhagen come to some kind of consensus.