Talk:Oregon Petition/Archive 1

May 2004
The first version of this article was listed on Cleanup for being unwikified and POV. Additionally I considered it to be original research, and it was also written in the first person. I have completely rewritten it in what I hope is a neutral and encyclopaedic tone, with lots of wikification! John Quiggin, please feel free to continue editing but please read NPOV and Editing policy first. Securiger 16:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

August 2005
"Surface temperatures have shown small but steady increases since the 1970s, but the tropics had shown little atmospheric heating — and even some cooling. Now, after sleuthing reported in three papers released by the journal Science, revisions have been made to that atmospheric data."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm

By not including the source and revision of the data which the petition was based on your saying all the people who signed it were lying. The reader needs to understand they were looking at what at the time they though was valid data but has since been proven by "three papers released by the journal Science" to be invalid.

You can just say it wasn't true. We might know today that it wasn't true but they didn't at the time.

Darkroom Thu Aug 25 17:13:12 EDT 2005


 * Oh yes I can. Satellite temperature measurements will tell you about the current situation. But if you go back in the history a bit to the 5.1 data you'll find that the trend to 1999 was .0579 oC/decade. Warming, not cooling. And that was true *before* the most recent revision of the S+C data to the 5.2 version. William M. Connolley 21:43:38, 2005-08-25 (UTC).

Comments removed from article for discussion
Why is the fact that the petition is often misrepresented present in the "criticism" section?

If unscrupulous people twist facts to fit their own agenda then it's hardly the fault of those who originally presented those facts.

The link [2] (accesstoenergy.com) is a site that intentionally looks similar to the www.osim.org site, but upon closer scrutiny it is revealed that it is not affiliated with it at all - it is a different organization completely.

This would be analogous to someone creating a site that looks identical to Wikipedia, and then that "copycat" site intentionally skews it's political slant, for instance to promote an extreme left wing Liberal agenda. In this example, people could then unfairly offer up the bogus site as "criticism" of Wikipedia as being a shill for extreme left wing causes. The case is the same with presenting accesstoenergy.com in the "criticism" section here.

Also, the original letter http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm was clearly not "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,”.

And while the fact that the "The National Academy of Sciences issued a statement that the petition had nothing to do with them" is interesting, it is hardly a criticism (or even a salient point).
 * Above posted by User:24.168.92.117 on 15 Sep.
 * Vsmith 15:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The petition was designed to be deceptive. It was accompanied by a letter (full of half truths etc etc)designed to look like a PNAS article, which is why the PNAS were obliged to make it clear that it was nothing to do with them. I'm glad you think SEPP and the std.septics are unscrupulous, though. William M. Connolley 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted some edits from an unregistered IP number who deleted material and inserted their own POV criticism JQ 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Signatory Names
In the article there is a quote wondering whether two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins actually signed the petition or if the same person signed it twice. This is speculation, but with so many names (I'm not addressing whether all are legitimate or not, just the quantity), there could very well be two people with the same name (I don't know if there are other duplicates, these are the ones in the quotes). David Tompkins sounds like a pretty common name. Also, there is the possibility that as the list of signatories was compiled, the error is in entering it into the website. It is very common when copying to lose your place (I do a lot), and with such a long list it would not surprise me to see a few such errors. Sometimes even novels, after having been proofread and edited several times have sentences and entire paragraphs repeated. Professor Chaos 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The quoted passage lists numerous potentially problematic signatures, of which the duplicates are probably the least important. There's no appropriate way of quoting the passage without this. If there's a response from Seitz or others associated with the petition explaining the duplication in the way you suggest, it would be appropriate to include it. A quick Google "oregon petition eaglemans" produces nothing suitable. JQ 05:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI-The project has removed the duplicate Eagleman. There's only one "Joe R. Eagleman" listed now.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

More comments removed from article
[it actually is true: the average increase since about 1860 is accurate, but it wasn't uniform: increased greatly from about 1925 to 1945, and decreased a bit between about 1950 and 1970 or so.]

This needs to be sourced and is written as a kind of aside to the information already presented, thus needs to written in a more encyclopedic manner if put back in the article. Ask me if you need help. Thanks. Katr67 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The data being referred to was collected by satellites and weather balloons, which weren't around in 1860. Satellite data began around 1980. Obviously some confusion here, so removal was appropriate.JQ 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?
This is not an encyclopedia article. This is an Op-Ed criticism. There is no summary or overview of the petition and everything that is written about it has some sort of criticism or opinion that undermines the validity of the petition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.38.232 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Perhaps you're reading a different article? The one I just looked at did have a summary, as well as the full text of the petition (which fit onto a postcard).  Or perhaps, when you say undermines the validity of the petition, you're assuming that the petition was in some way "valid", and thus criticism of it is in some way "invalid".  Please note that articles here are to follow the WP:NPOV policy, which includes no presumptions about anything being "valid" on its face.  John Broughton  |  Talk 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first comment in this thread, this does not read like an encyclopedia article, it reads far more like an op-ed. There is certainly no question whether the writer believes in the validity of the petition. I take issue with the following:
 * 1) "but provides no explanation of how this verification was done"
 * 2) "The text of the petition is often misrepresented"
 * 3) "catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming"."
 * 4) "Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as "Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A."
 * 5) "Both Baliunas and Soon have ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical position on global warming since the 1980s"
 * 6) "22-year-old son"
 * 7) "Raymond Pierrehumbert"
 * 8) "Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed"
 * 9) "The verification of the scientists is listed at 95%"


 * 1) 8) & 9) "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated." Granted, they do not explain the methodology for their independent review, but they do claim that the verification was done independently. While this may not be the best explanation of how they reviewed it, it is an explanation. The claim "no explanation of how this verification is done" is a half-truth at best. The claim that "older signatures (submitted via the web) were not removed" has no source. Additionally, the petition site provides examples of names removed. See above Geri Halliwell. Finally the 95% verification number was for signers listing PHDs. Your claim is both wrong and misleading.
 * 2) This is quite irrelevant. You write that the petition is misrepresented as if the pro-global warming crowd isn't misrepresented in the press as to the effects of global warming. Scientists are warning that the temperature could increase a couple of degrees over the next few millennia, but every particularly hot day the press chimes in about global warming. Even Hurricane Katrina was blamed on global warming. Scientist/pundits warned that the next hurricane cycle would be even worse... and what happened during the next hurricane cycle? Almost nothing: only one hurricane hit the US last cycle and it was a category one... little more than a tropical storm. The only purpose of pointing out how the petition has been interpreted is to undermine the credibility of the actual petition by implying, "look how these idiots interpreted it."
 * 3) Global warming is largely understood to be a catastrophic heating and disruption. If not, then there would be no global warming hysteria, and people would instead be talking about how great it is that the farming cycles are getting longer and helping to feed the world's growing population.
 * 4) Frederick Seitz either is or isn't a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University. You do not make this clear. You say he identifies himself as such, casting doubt onto the validity of this, but you do not provide evidence that he is or is not a former president of the national academy of sciences. If he is in fact what he claims to be, then you should identify him as such. Look at the difference in these two sentences A) The petition included a cover letter written by a man who served as former president of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A, and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, Frederick Seitz. and B) The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as "Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.; President Emeritus, Rockefeller University." Sentence A does not cast doubt upon the man's credentials while Sentence B plants a seed of doubt into the mind of the reader. This is evidence of the bias of the author of this article.
 * 5) & 7) You point out ties between the article's authors and their affiliation with a group which has a long history of being skeptical of global warming, you do this to try to detract from their credibility. You then cite to a blogger for your damning quotes against the project on the whole.
 * 6) Why is the age of the son relevant? You make a point of the fact that one of the authors of the article is 22 and a relative of another signer. So what? Why was this included if not to simply smear and attack the credibility of the petition?


 * Every comment in this article is written from a critical point of view. This article does an awful job of detailing what was in the petition, what was in the article, and what aspects of this petition project are credible. This wiki entry only serves to cast doubt upon the petition project.


 * Many of the criticisms are fine, and certainly should be part of an article about the project; however, at this point this is a terrible article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.188.94.196 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Reference without information
This article refers to 'five prominent efforts intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming' but does not identify those 'efforts'. 69.153.250.231 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Beefing up article
I have added information to this article and verified some of the sources under the Signatures section. the information that was listed before contradicted itself when you actually went to the sources it had listed. I am also currelty working on adding the names of the signers to either this list or the list of Global warming skeptics.--Zeeboid 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to bet, they (Connelley & co.) will delete it for some fabricated reasons. If they apply a set of standards to your text in their justification for deleting it then that standard should be applied throughout the entire article.  They have high standards for opposing content and delete text rather than discussing it.  The whole article should be handled in the same manner.  Make it so. --  Tony of Race to the Right 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is what I was assuming also, but So far, Connelley has added to instead of reverting something he didn't think was accurate, and justifiably too... but we'll see.--Zeeboid 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"independantly verified"
The informaiton you are changing is already implied by the text. Please look up the deffinition of "Independantly verified"

Also, the rise of temperatures is in question. Please refer to the link of the Petition that displays this. there are multiple sources that state conflicting information when it comes to Warming or Cooling of temperatures. I will provide these to clairify the canges.--Zeeboid 17:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that the information *has* been independently verified. The petition site merely states this; there is no hint as to the method; there is no mention as to who has done the verifiction. Therefore asserting that they are IV is unacceptable: the article should note that this is only an assertion of the petition. Its certainly not implied by your version of the text William M. Connolley 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As to the data: the description in the text of our article is wrong. Ref your link, figs 5 (which goes up to '96) and 6 (up to '97). Since the petition was done in '99, our text stating '99 must be wrong. Exactly what trend you do get depends on which version of the MSU data you use, so fair enough, I'll change this back till I've looked into it William M. Connolley 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Phrase "Independant Verification" is in it self, a warning to readers, thus your extra extra explination is not nessisary, and is only POV pushing. The "assertion of petition" i can go with, but yes, the Temperature part is in flux.  As I said, multiple sources can be provided.  If you have a copy of "State of Fear" lying around, that will help.--Zeeboid 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't think of anything useful you'd get from SoF. Anyway: temp data: the petition is dated Jan 1998, so they get to not worry about the 1998 enso. If you use the earliest version of the MSU data I have, the trend to 1997 is still +ve; but unfortunately S+C don't archive their very early data, and the internet archive doesn't do ftp sites, so we'll probably never know. So I'm content to leave the temperature bit.


 * However, I can't accept your interpretation of IV. IV means, in common English, was checked by a reliable, independent, external entity. There is absolutely no evidence for that at all; there is also no evidence for what standards were applied in the check. "IV" is not a warning: it instead an indication of quality, which is not jusified by the evidence William M. Connolley 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is alot of useful information you would get from SOF. I would recommend reading the full 20 pages of scientific references.  Though I know you would not discount the refrences because its in a Fiction book, but instead you would be one to review the refrences themselves and come to your own conclusion.  Though Real Climate.org does not think much of it, but I'm sure you would agree with me on Real Climate.org's increadable BIAS.--Zeeboid 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take RC over SoF any day. Its incredible the number of people fooled by a reference list. But go on then: what is the first piece of useful (scientific) info you got from SoF? William M. Connolley 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I will put together multiple sources, and wether or not they were in a book that you don't agree with should be irrevialent. The data it self from an accurate origional source is all that should matter.  Your desire to take one bit of information but not the other into account is a little scarry.--Zeeboid 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision Needed
The following section needs revision:
 * The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.  Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article ... is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".

The link brings you to a page where you can not see the article. I will try to find something linking to it, but if I am unable to, it, like other information that is listed without references, should be deleted.--Zeeboid 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you may not do this. The link brings you to an exact reference, which is to say, an article in Science. Just because its to something that you don't have immeadiate reference to is irrelevant. Its just like being given page and issue number of the paper copy. William M. Connolley 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is the definition of the phrase "half-truths"? From what I understand, something is either factually correct or incorrect. The statement "half-truths" wreaks of "opinion". This needs to be fixed.--Zeeboid 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The dictoinary deffinition of half-truths is: 1. a statement that is only partly true, esp. one intended to deceive, evade blame, or the like. 2. a statement that fails to divulge the whole truth.

If one is willing to assume the people who put this petition though are committing half-truths, then it is easially argued the same for any Pro-GW Data. I think it is best to remove the whole "half-truths" less it be used as a disclaimer everywhere else. (the An Inconvenient Truth article for example)--Zeeboid 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If it was an editor adding HT your claim might have some merit. Since its a quote from an external source there is no merit William M. Connolley 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are quotes around part of that statement but the phrase in question is not in any conext. this is deceptive... in addation to the link not displaying anything about the statement in question.  if the man said it, it should be quoted and properly refrenced.  Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.Zeeboid 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added information about Raymond Pierrehumbert, to help give backround to his leanings, much like wat was provided for other Drs in this article.--Zeeboid 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is an exact *reference* to the statement in question; it is a perfectly proper reference. In addition, some people will be able to read it online; others will have to go to the library. It is nearly equivalent, but more compact and more useful, to simply giving a ref to (Science, year, volume) William M. Connolley 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * are sources used for Wikipedia that are only available to "some people" acceptable? to all people? all we need here is a link that is available to all people.  Until then, it is unverifiable.--Zeeboid 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course - there are many books and papers referenced in articles in wikipedia which are only available to people able to look up those paper sources. You seem to be under the curious impression that only online sources are acceptable. This is a half-way: for those with permission, its an online source. For those without, its a paper reference William M. Connolley 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "are sources used for Wikipedia that are only available to "some people" acceptable?" An article in Science is accessible to most people - a trip to a good library should turn it up.  A lot of acceptable sources are far less widely available than Science.  "Verifiable" does not mean "accessible to anyone with an internet connection". Guettarda 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This sentance was taken out, and I'm looking for a more-grand explination becides the exp that was listed
 * At the time this Scientific American reporting was listed, this number was accurate, though has since grown to 2,660.
 * Altered by Raymond arritt (Talk | contribs) (→Signatories - delete - not independently verified)
 * Are you saying that its removed because this number has not been Ind. Ver. by the Origion Petition Project like the 17000ish others?--Zeeboid 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see Zeeboid removing the reference to Science on the spurious grounds that it can't be verified. It can be, obviously: it tells you the paper in question is: "CLIMATE CHANGE: Advocacy Mailing Draws Fire Malakoff Science 10 April 1998: 195 DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5361.195a". This is perfectly valid, as several people have pointed out above. Z appears to be suggesting that any reference must be to directly readable online sources, which is of course nonsense William M. Connolley 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You inaccurately assess the situation. I did not remove the refrence to Science, I only ask for it to be verified, as I can not access the site in question, however as you say, and as "several people have pointed out" its noncence to assume that "any reference must be to directly readable online sources"  and the user who provided the quote, allong with you stating this to clear it up (allowing me to remember the days of actually going somewhere other then my computer to get the needed information) helps.--Zeeboid 13:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some edits, from an interview with Arthur B. Robinson, because the items in question, are accessable to the public. The changes are perfectly valid, as though they are not directly readable online, they can be viewed by contacting the OISM or Arthur B. Robinson.--Zeeboid 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - "you can get it by contacting Robinson" doesn't meet the requirement of "published sourced". In addition, there is no source which says this is so.  Find a published source.  Guettarda 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Prof. Robinson and the OISM, the OISM has this information published, and can be reviewed by anyone who would like to review it. This data is available to anyone who wishes to see it, not just by asking Prof Robinson, but by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as well. Much like a souce not available to someone with an internet connection, all you need to do is ask for the information.--Zeeboid 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it does meet the criteria as it is a freely available source. I reverted your change, then changed it back as I went a link deeper, and saw what your refering to as a "published" source.  I will get this information published.--Zeeboid 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. It would greatly clarify things if you asked Robinson to publish the information on his oism.org website, or at least to publish directions on how to obtain the information. Otherwise all we have is a second-hand claim that information should be available, and such a claim doesn't meet any reasonable standard of verifiability. Raymond Arritt 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this?
"The petition site asserts that total number of Independently verified signatures received is 17,800. but there is no evidence of how this verification was done." Is there anything to show or allege thar the verification wasn't done? If not, it should stand without the snarky POV comments. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It says what it says. "There was no evidence of how this verification was done." I'd replace the word "evidence" with the more neutral word "explanation".  A look at the OISM web site indeed shows there's no explanation of how the verification was done. If you can find details on the verification it would be helpful to include them. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need for proof of verification -- were questions raised elewhere by someone other than yourself? Your POV is getting in the way of logic.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was no "proof" of verification, but that there was no "explanation" of how the verification was done. Did someone glance at the list and say "looks OK to me"?  Did they go through the names themselves?  Did they hire an outside firm to verify the names?  Did an independent academic team go through the list? They don't say.  It would be helpful if they did. Raymond Arritt 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To you it would be helpful. To me, you're just trying to push a POV.  BTW: "it says what it says" is tautological bullshit.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive remarks. Raymond Arritt 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jim62sch isn't the only one that feels that way.--Zeeboid 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article contains a fair bit of info suggesting that verification was pretty sloppy, so the fact that no details are given is relevant.JQ 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget it Jim, trying to get NPOV on Wikipedia is like a socialist trying to get NPOV on Rush Limbaugh. It will never happen...EVER.  However, I am trying to collect evidence of the POV problems so I can bring them up when I interview Jimbo again, so please feel free to collect it...how to contact me (through the show) is on my user page. --  Tony of Race to the Right 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, this was an interesting experiment, and the Wiki editors did a great job. I was playing devil's advocate to see if some of what has been said about us lately in the media and on departing users' talk pages was true.  The answer is no: you've actually considered the arguments presented and the article reflects that.  I apologise if this ruse offended anyone, but I knew we were better than some people have said and I just wanted to prove it.  Thanks to all for reaffirming my faith in wikipedia.  Feel free to go to AN/I if you wish, my only defense is that sometimes internal audits (even unofficial ones) are better than external audits.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote from unreliable source
There was a quote that was deleted (and should be deleted or substantially corrected) and 6 minutes later (you guys are quick) replaced.

The problems with the passage are as follows: 1. "One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:"--it is not a newspaper reporter, nor a news story. The quote is from an op-ed piece by Todd Shelly. That error I have already corrected.

2. Source cited for the quote (Hawaii Reporter) does not meet the Reliable Sources--it's home page is a list of op-eds and guest editorials, and does not appear to have a "news staff". According to SourceWatch the Hawaii Reporter "is known for publishing articles directly from the discredited Talon News." (And based on the standards set in other Global Warming related articles which justify the complete removal of information if the source is from World Net Daily or NewsMax, this HI Reporter text is also not meritable.) For this reason the reference is removed and a reliable source needed. The text should be removed if a sufficiently reliable source cannot be agreed on.

3. The author of the op-ed (in an already unreliable source) did not disclose his identity in the op-ed which is necessary for credibility issues, to understand possible ulterior motives or conflicts with the topic, etc. This is especially true if the author's information is relevant to the topic. He is presented as "Todd Shelly...a resident of East Honolulu, Hawaii" and not disclosing that he is an Assoc Researcher at the Center for Conservation Research and Training Pacific Biosciences Research Center. Further establishing the issues around reliable news credibility, this same "reporter" has had published in the HI Reporter columns such as time travel as proof against legislation. And regarding the identity of the "reporter", Shelly is identified here as well.

4. Someone commented on the summary for their revert earlier "Surely the petition itself can serve as a source to back up this statement?" Considering that it is not even "reasonable for people to have to trawl through" a directly cited source to find or verify quoted material it is logical to say it is less reasonable to expect people to trawl through multiple sources to verify quoted material. It should be removed entirely in a few days if it remains without a consensus on a good reason why Wikipedia's standards for citation should allow a quote from a a highly unreliable source written by a biased author disguising his identity on an article which needs a 2nd source to back up its claims. -- Tony 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony - i don't see your problem here: 1. News these days are not just radio, tv or paper - the Hawaii reporter seems to be a fairly well regarded source - directly involved in government disputes - and reputable enough to have been a focus of an article in the Wall street journal. 2. its an op-ed, they are allowed on Wikipedia - but must be marked as such.(afaik) (i'm going to revert to your former version - which i find reasonable). 3. The author did disclose himself with Name and left an email- your connection to an Assoc Researcher is WP:OR (it may be correct - but that doesn't matter). 4. that wasn't me - so i'll just skip it. --Kim D. Petersen 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further on your #2 - there are several op-ed's listed on almost all climate change related articles. Most of what Lindzen is quoted for is for instance written in such. --Kim D. Petersen 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Kim, I do not understand the justification behind your claims. Please explain it to me clearly so I do not violate these things anymore.
 * Kim said: "i'm going to revert to your former version". Please help me understand how I'm reading WP:Revert incorrectly.  I thought it is clear: "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." and "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism".  Unless the revert is your first step in accussing me of WP:VAND I do not understand the justification.  Please help me understand?
 * Actually i didn't revert - try checking my edit - i know i said it here - but i misremembered your edit as being somewhat close to what i've now edited it to. --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim said: "your connection to an Assoc Researcher is WP:OR". Please help me understand your claim.  WP:OR says, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."  Please explain how someone's identity in an article (which is germane to the article) is WP:OR in this single instance but not on other articles.  Specifically which of these did Shelly's information qualify under: 'unpublished fact' or 'unpublished argument' or 'unpublished concepts' or 'unpublished statement' or 'unpublished theory' or 'unpublished analysis' or 'unpublished synthesis'?
 * How exactly do you know (and can document) that this Todd Shelly is the same as the one you link to? Thats original research. For what its worth - my gut-feeling says its him as well - but if you cannot make the connection - then its not allowed. Make the connection and i won't argue. --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim said: "the Hawaii reporter seems to be a fairly well regarded source - directly involved in government disputes - and reputable enough to have been a focus of an article in the Wall street journal." Would this qualify as WP:OR, perhaps in the same category as Shelly's biographical information?
 * No that's not WP:OR - otherwise it would not be possible to include anything into Wikipedia - how do you know that the Washington Post is reliable - and by your measure how would that not be WP:OR as well? The Hawaii Reporter (imho) seems to be a libertarian news outlet and opinion journal - its clearly partisan - but that is not the issue here. --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim said: "the Hawaii reporter seems to be a fairly well regarded source...and reputable enough" According to whom...and how does that explicitly fit under WP:Reliable source or Attribution?
 * See above --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim said: "reputable enough to have been a focus of an article in the Wall street journal." Without seeing the article it would be foolish to accept this.  In what context was the article?  And does being a primary focus of a WSJ article qualify an opinions website as a Reliable Source?  If yes, then I imagine there are a wide array of sources that I expect you to defend, such as The Telegraph which was deleted by by an editor recently because it was simply "not a reliable source" because the source was just "popular newspaper articles that may or may not accurately reflect scientific research". --  Tony 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony - i've adequatly explained the Telegraph article on the talk page . The article is wrong - it quotes the research and Dr. Solanki incorrectly. And thats checkable - all news-media gets things wrong once in a while - there is nothing strange in that. The Telegraph is also not a reliable source on science (and no wonder - thats not what they are trained in). --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The answers were exactly what I expected and just what I needed. Thank you. -- Tony 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"gw is a lie"
Interesting to note that the project site seems to have changed. Until recently it said "This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever". All that trash now seems to have quietly disappeared William M. Connolley 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to apply the words of one of thousands of websites which comments about the Global Warming Petition Project, and then falsely attribute those comments to the actual petition site itself. That would be like filming a NY Yankees fan who screamed "Red Socks Suck" and then claiming that the New York Yankees has officially declared that the Boston Red Socks "Suck". Obviously, such falsehoods have no business on wikipedia whose aspirations are high. Your falsehood is clearly demonstrated by your own citation which you unsuccessfully use to prove your point. Look at your archived web site. It is clearly introducing the website:
 * Hi William. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia, but please try to remain civil.  While you may genuinely feel that other blogs and websites are "trash", you should not "trash talk" anyone on wikipedia, and you should also not misrepresent the facts.  Unfortunately, you clearly misrepresent the facts in your comment above.  (and perhaps you authored the false hoods which I just removed from the article, describe here [])


 * This is the website that ...


 * Clearly, the sentence "This is the website" can only be read in context, which shows that the word "website" is highlighted as a link. Clicking on the link brings you to the actual website.  The actual website is very clear, very concise, and very polite.  Presumably, if you are able to navigate wikipedia as an editor you have at least the bare minimum of knowledge to understand a webpage, links, and how articles and commentary often references other sites.  How are we supposed to continue with the assumption that you are editing in good faith when you miss the simple truth and write falsehoods with the obvious intent to denigrate the petition?  Please recheck your sources and by all means talk about it here, in a civil manner.  I would like to think that your posting was simple human error. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias in article on Oregon Petition
This is a very biased article. The general format of each section is to describe some aspect of the petition, frequently using language that casts doubt on it and then to follow up either with statements that attack it directly or with a number of quotes from individuals attacking it.

As an example, section one, "Text", consists of the text of the petition followed by an assertion that individuals associated with the petition frequently misstate what the petition actually says. This an assertion and the example given is misleading. In the article circulated with the petition the term "Global Warming" is consistently used to refer to catastrophic changes in temperature and their consequences. "Global Warming" is defined to mean a catastrophic rise in temperature at the beginning of the article. The fact that the temperature of the earth is generally rising, and has been rising for the last 300 years is not questioned.

The second two sections follow a similar pattern starting by describing some aspect of the petition followed by a mostly one-sided attack on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.167.103 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from your example, which the text does seem to address, what specific objections do you have? If this petition is notable mostly because it was discredited, then it's not inappropriate for the article to focus on that source of notability. Croctotheface 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the same individual as the one previously identified by IP address 207.14.167.103, I will be posting under this new username in the future so as to cut down on confusion. The comments in the section below "Outsiders Opinion" are similar to what I would write if I were going through this article to point out specific examples of bias. -ftsnorf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftsnorf (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Global warming", in normal parlance, has its normal meaning. The text that people signed says catastrophic, etc. The site cannot then go off and talk about this being equivalent to GW - that is a misrepresentation, however they have defined things in their own minds William M. Connolley 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be taken as a sign of good faith if the anonymous IP were to disclose any potential conflicts of interest having to do with the article. Raymond Arritt 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's opinion
I think I am reasonably neutral about this article. I came here only because somewhere I saw a request for help and decided to see what I can do. So here are some of my observations.

As written it is difficult to separate fact from opinion. It might be better to have factual sections about what the petition is, then a new section, Criticism about the petition.

Specific comments by section:

Text

 * The text of the petition is often misrepresented
 * Misrepresented by whom? What references show that it is misrepresented?


 * The text shows that the petition was misrepresented by its proponents.JQ 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * for example until recently the petition's website stated that "scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis."
 * How does that example show that the text was misrepresented? Is the website relevant to the text of the petition? If so, is an old version of the website what is relevant or the current website?
 * The version that stood for ten years after the petition was circulated seems at least as relevant as a recent change (coincidental with attempts to remove criticism on this point from Wikipedia). However, it's probably best to mention both. JQ 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The article associated with the petition (see below) did mention "global warming" twenty-one times and "climate change" four times.
 * How is that commentary relevant to the text of the petition?


 * It's relevant to the misrepresentation. JQ 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Covering letter and attached article

 * The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as ...
 * Why "identified himself as" instead of the simpler "was"? The phrasing insinuates that perhaps he misrepresented himself.
 * I've removed reference to Seitz' former position, the linked article covers all thisJQ 04:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think his former position should be ignored in the article. It establishes his relationship to the subject of the Petition and is relevant information.--Blue Tie 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical position on global warming
 * Where are the references to verify the ties? It looks like WP:OR. How would any ties be relevant to the article? The statement has the appearance of ad hominem attacks or guilt by association: a) skeptics are kooks; b) the GCM Institute is skeptical; c) GCM is nothing but kooks; d) anyone associated with GCM is a kook; e) their paper must be nonsense.
 * Given that the authors have their own Wikipedia articles, I've shortened their description to "astrophysicists and GW skeptics", avoiding any selective summary of their various affiliations.JQ 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The fourth and final author was Zachary W. Robinson, Arthur Robinson's 21-year-old son.
 * The reference for the article lists only the three authors. Why is his age mentioned?
 * As a general rule, 21-year olds don't write scientific articles, so his age is of interest.JQ 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.
 * That is no longer verifiable through the cited references. The reference is a link to the petition's website, which now has a newer version of their article. In this situation I don't know what is the right way to handle it. Should the Wikipedia article (as opposed to the OISM article) reflect the facts at the time the petition originally circulated or the facts as they are today? Is it possible to obtain verifiable references to the original OISM article?


 * Considering its role as an intervention in a political and scientific debate, it seems to me that it is the facts when the petition was circulated that matter most. For example, the claims made about satellite data are now known to be wrong, but the article correctly states that the position was unclear when they were made. JQ 04:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can a link to a version of the previous article be made to the internet archive? -ftsnorf


 * Of course William M. Connolley 16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop here but repeat my suggestion that criticism be moved to its own section. And for the sake of NPOV, if there are verifiable sources to rebut the criticisms those should be included. Sbowers3 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Separate criticism sections are generally bad style, especially when there is then a rebuttal. But of course, any reliably sourced material responding to criticisms should be coveredJQ 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Petition is being mailed out again
I'm here because I just got in the mail(Oct. 10, 07) the "new" version of the article (which is linked now from the page) along with the same old petition in the mail. I'm a Ph.D. in math, teaching in a college, and got the "old" petition some years ago, but nothing in between.

I just wanted it known that the petition drive is still (again?) in an active phase. Which means that other people like me may soon, or now, be consulting the wikipedia article for background. Thanks. Sal65 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A colleague gave it to me. It was sent to several people in geology, engineering, etc. at our university. Interestingly, none of the people in our meteorology program have received it. Also interestingly, we've seen editor(s) very likely from the OISM on this page in recent days. Raymond Arritt 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which editor(s) are thought to be from OISM? I came here and edited the article for the same reason as Sal65 - I just received the petition and thought that others might be interested in more info. Crumley 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Point of view
I replaced the POV tag again - it is not just that I disagree with the point of view of this article (which I do) - the article is an open ed attack done by compiling quotes from other sources that attack the subject of the article.

A fairly simple Google search will turn up web pages (mostly newspaper editorials) that take the opposite point of view of this article. I would say that newspaper editorials are not good sources, but this article uses quotes from newspapers I never heard of to make its point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftsnorf (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of 18 references in the article, precisely two are from newspapers. Granted the Hawaii Reporter is a bit obscure, but it's surprising that someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest has never heard of the Seattle Times. Raymond Arritt 04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, never had read or heard of the Seattle Times, though it is obviously a newspaper based in Seattle.

I intend within the next few days to submit/recommend edits to balance this article - when I can find a couple hours to work on it. Was planning to do it this weekend but it did'nt work out.

Off topic, but a couple people have sent me messages. If somebody could send me a message to let me know how to reply to a message another user sent me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftsnorf (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree this article is an insult to the many good articles on Wikipedia. It is so obvious trying to nit pick that it lacks any credibility as an unbiased article. 88.111.40.79 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SciAm
Is anyone able to find a working link to the Scientific American article on the Oregon Petition? ~ UBeR (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a way-back-machine link? (the article itself is pay-for-view) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems from that link that the article is just a sidebar in another article called "Climate of Uncertainty" which is from 2001, not 2005. I don't have a subscription, though; could someone check on this? 130.215.36.61 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC) John S.

Address
I placed the mailing address in there not for the purpose of advertising. I am opposed to the "petition project" personally, but thought it was important info. Many of these questionable organizations tend to be lazy and sloppy, and felt that having that information available would assist all interested parties, either side of the argument.

user:KimDabelsteinPetersen reverted my edit, and offhandeedly labelled it as advertisemnt. I strongly disagree, and I strongly disagree with her reversion. However, I am am uninterested in engaging in a stupid and fruitless revert war. I ask instead for the interested readers to voice their opinion if they have any, and we might all come to some consensus.Vampromero (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What purpose would the address have? Its available on the site, which we do link. We are not a phone-book, what encyclopedic value does it have? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Article title
Who titled this article? It is not the Oregon Petition, and the Petition Project website plainly explains why the name is Petition Project or Global Warming Petition Project. Apparently this error now extends to other language sites, so it might be difficult to move; although it should be moved to be correct. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the name Oregon petition is what its been called since it started? (also by sceptics ) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You should go to the website and review that.

"Why is this effort called "Petition Project?"

Signatories to the petition have signed just the petition – which speaks for itself. The organizers – themselves scientists located at several scientific institutions – have designed the project to emphasize this single fact. The use of a post office box mailing address, a generic name – Petition Project, and other institutionally-neutral aspects of the project are intended to avoid the impression that the signatories have endorsed the agenda or actions of any institution, group, or other activity. They are simply signers of this petition to the government of the United States, as written."

-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:NAME. Its called the Oregon petition, because that is what its been called since the '90s. The website "petitionproject.org" was registered on the Feb 12, 2008 - so thats probably not a good place to search. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not here for a big argument over it. It's a bonafide site linked to the University petition site.  If you think that the name is invalid and the reason given above is untrue, then then maybe it should be checked.  Otherwise, maybe a note should be added to the intro to indicate the change. If your course takes you in the wrong direction, do you continue on once you know the error? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 23:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The point you may be missing is that things in Wikiepdia are titled according to the way they are commonly known, and not neccesarily the way they want to be known. If OISM has adopted the title "Petition Project" for their new efforts, i.e. those launched since 2007, then that should be noted in the article.  However, the OISM petition efforts, which initially began around Kyoto and have recently recommenced, are better recognized by the public by their relation to Oregon than by a title like "Petition Project".  Dragons flight (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The way they WANT to be known"? What do you mean by this?  Can we start making up our own names for things now?  Maybe the press can make up names, and then we have to use them?  Unfortunately there is no history on their website.  I'm just trying to make the article accurate, not the way people are use to it or commonly known.  There should be a source to support the correct title. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 00:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientists opposed to global warming theory (Oregon Petition) preserves the original name and describes the article for enhanced understanding.Bioextra (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for major changes
I agree with those people above that have said this article does not read like a neutral encyclopedia entry. If the facts end up supporting the claim that the petition is bogus, that is fine, but I think it would be bad for Wikipedia if this article gives the impression of being eager to jump to this conclusion. If anybody out there is ambitious, I have several suggestions for how this article can be improved:

-The intro is great as is except for one question of fact: it says the petition was organized between 1999 and 2001, but elsewhere in the article the petition seems to exist as early as 1997. Anybody know the answer?

-Text. This section should be called "Text of the petition." The paragraph about misrepresentation of the petition and the definition of Global Warming should be moved to a separate section on "Controversy." In the "Text" section, the following sentence should serve to replace the moved paragraph: "It is important to note that the petition does not contest the fact that the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans has increased since the mid-20th century." [I lifted the italicized phrase from the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Global Warming]

-Covering letter and attached article. This section ought to contain a thorough summary of the current article while pointing out any factual errors and any disputable points. The second paragraph ought to be updated to reflect the current version of the article, or moved to a section on prior versions of the article, or removed if deemed no longer relevant. The third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs discuss the fact that the original article copied the format of the Proceedings of the NAS and the fact that it was not peer reviewed. Since these paragraphs are not true of the current version of the article, they should be moved to a section on prior versions or removed if deemed no longer relevant. Also, regarding the fourth paragraph, I wonder if the NAS has released anything on this topic since 1998--anybody want to investigate?

-Signatories. This section should be called "Verification of signatories." The statement, "though none of these claims have been independently verified" is false because it implies that the Project may not have actually requested signatories to list academic degrees and disciplines, but it is a matter of fact that they have requested just that. The part that has not been verified is whether the signatories responses are all truthful. The above phrase should therefore be deleted, but it can be replaced with more accurate, specific criticisms in the bullet points below it. The quote from the Seattle Times and the quote from the Hawaii Reporter should be replaced with a paragraph that summarizes the issue of fake, duplicate, and famous names with citations to the Seattle Times and the Hawaii Reporter. This same paragraph should make it clear that the project maintains that the names Perry Mason and Michael Fox are statistical coincidences rather than fraudulent submissions. If there is any info about Robert C. Byrd (I just checked and he is still listed as a signatory), the info should be included.

I think that is all I've got. I'm eager to know if people like these ideas. WPisgreat (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris Colose's blog reference
I think that Chris Colose's blog reference on the signatories to Petition is as good as the other references in that section. It is true that Chris Colose's credential's are not given, but since he lays out his methodology so clearly, that is less of a concern. Chris clearly states which names he looked into, what searches he made, and what he found. This makes it very easy to duplicate and extend his results, unlike some of the other references.

The Scientific American reference, for example, is only a short sidebar. They explain briefly what they have done, but they don't mention the names they looked into, so is impossible to check their work. The Op-Ed by Todd Shelly only briefly talks about the petition and clearly states that not much time was spent looking at the petition.

The Seatle Times article is in some senses the strongest reference in this section since they interacted with the petition writers and got answers to some questions, but they only looked at a few likely fake names.

So while I agree that the Colose reference is not strong, I think it fits in well with the rest of this section and that it adds useful information. So I am adding it back in, in a slightly revised form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crumley (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * His methodology includes using Google to verify the names. The fact he doesn't even have access to the common university and scientific resources is enough to blow his methodology. That aside, it is not for us to determine his methodologies correctness, it's all original research by definition, and as meaningless as if he'd posted his findings as an article on Wikipedia in the first place. When someone with a background in the topic verifies his research in a more appropriate place and with actual scientic method, perhaps we can use his data, but until then, it's far less of an appropriate source than the rest which at least have gone  through so basic journalistic and scientific verification. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not a reliable source. Unless this is significant mention then it'd be better to remove it.  Will Beback   talk    05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ''As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
 * Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon. Published in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2007; 12(3), 79.


 * It's an article that was included as part of the petition mailing and is mentioned only as such. Of course, you're right that this so-called "journal" cannot in any sense be used as an actual scientific source, but it's not cited in that way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, on reflection and rereading I see it's quite appropriate to mention it this way.   Will Beback    talk    04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons be considered a reliable source? Is the journal Nature considered a reliable source?  Do you suggest all journals can't be considered reliable?  -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a few minutes and read about it, and it should become clear why the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not a reliable source. It's not a scientific journal by any stretch of the imagination.  It's a psuedoscience journal.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but, if you want to explore this more, you can always post a question on Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion
We've had undiscussed two moves by User:Bioextra in the past two days. If Bioextra still believes the page should be moved, I recommend that they start a move discussion, at outlined at WP:RM. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously - move-warring isn't OK. If Bioextra wants to move the page, follow the instructions at requested moves.  In the interim, I'm move-protecting the page.  Guettarda (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The move was discussed above under article title. And those reverting are the ones who did not resond in the discussion. The new title preserves the Oregon Petition and enhances understanding for readers. No need to protect people from better understanding. This move is not controversial.  There is an abundance of censorship in the Global Warming topics. Every title is move protected and no dissent is allowed. The only objection offered is the move is controversial. This is not a sufficent objection and its also a poor excuse. Scientists opposed to global warming theory (Oregon Petition) is exactly what the topic is. How about protecting my move from the blatent censorship by others instead?  'Oregon Petition' is ambiguous, there could be a variety of petitions in Oregon. Protecting ambiguity? Where is that in the mission statement?Bioextra (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't discussed. You left a single comment of intent in a discussion that had been untouched for over a year (May 2008). Your title has never been discussed, it seems simply to be your own invention (the prev. discussion was whether it should be named "The Petition Project" or the "Oregon Petition")
 * To call your move "uncontroversial" is to ignore the content of the article. That the petition signers should be scientists (which your naming presumes/implies), is addressed several times. (by the petitions definition anyone with a BA/BS is a scientist), and i've not even started to address the controversy over whether the names are correct (also in the article). Second: The petition is not about "opposing global warming theory", please read it - the petition is about dissent on the Kyoto Protocol. (policy/implementation not science).
 * And while there may be other "Oregon petitions", this is the one that is notable - and if there is a need for other articles, we will address this by a disambiguation. Wikipedia chooses the name that is most known, and that is the Oregon petition. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)