ISSN 2330-717X

Over 31,000 Scientists Sign Petition Against Global Warming Agenda – OpEd


Over 31,000 scientists have united against the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, supports the necessity of carbon dioxide and sheds light on the agenda of global warming, which includes industrial energy rationing, central economic planning, and global taxation schemes. These scientists are now speaking out against the hoax of global warming and how global agreements to limit greenhouse gases are actually destructive to all plant and animal life on the planet.

The petition, which includes important peer-reviewed research, is backed by various scientists with a wide spectrum of expertise. The petition warns the United States about signing international treaties that only put a financial burden on the citizens of the country, steal national sovereignty, and restrict its energy production. The global warming alarmism, in other words, is pseudo-warfare designed to take down a country.

A letter from Frederick Seitz, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, is also being circulated with the petition. The letter warns about the flawed science against carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is essentially a miracle molecule of life, not a dangerous pollutant that needs to be eradicated from the atmosphere. His letter also shines a light on the dangers of the U.S. entering global treaties which will ration energy and confiscate the Nation’s wealth.

Just because climate alarmist Al Gore can walk a stage, point to a graph, and correlate rising temperatures over oceans with a rise in greenhouse gases, does not make global warming a real issue or some kind of “settled science” that is going to destroy the planet. As the scientists point out, the vapor pressure of CO2 over sea water is temperature dependent. It’s natural for the two data sets to go up together. It’s not something to be alarmed about.

The petition urges elected leaders to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 and all other proposals similar in nature. Thankfully, President Trump broke the U.S. free from the Paris Climate Accord. Removing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide would actually hurt the planet, taking away the compound that plants need to thrive. If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

The petition and its accompanying research dispel the myth that projected carbon dioxide levels are going to cause a catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and the disruption of climate. The evidence is actually in favor of greenhouse gases, which are beneficial to plant and animal environments on Earth. The petition also takes aim at the global warming agenda, and says that it will hinder the advancement of science and technology around the world. The confiscation of U.S. energy output is a threat to U.S. sovereignty and the nation’s ability to offer aid to other countries. What if climate change alarmists just took a deep breath, exhaled some carbon dioxide, and actually focused on real pollutants that are plaguing our environment and health?

Click here to have Eurasia Review's newsletter delivered via RSS, as an email newsletter, via mobile or on your personal news page.


MINA is the Macedonian International News Agency

One thought on “Over 31,000 Scientists Sign Petition Against Global Warming Agenda – OpEd

  • March 8, 2018 at 8:35 pm

    A fair question to “Removing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide would actually hurt the plant, taking away the compound that plants need to thrive.” So how low is too low? We are at a natural low point in the generation of heat based on the Earth’s orientation in the solar system. This is based on the Milankovitch cycle, which many say is both astronomically fair and simplified. To that end, the average ocean temperatures have risen over the past few decades and surface ocean temperature over the last century.

    The argument that is effectively being made by this op-ed is that without modern human industry and planet manipulation, there would be no plants. So, where did plants come from? What came first, coal to burn or flora that decomposes to coal.

    As to the 31,000 who signed, that is a very low number as anyone involved in academia would attest. How many science doctorates are granted in a year. Would you assume a doctorate would be active in the sciences for a decade?

    Questions for digression:
    Who was Frederick Seitz, what paper was circulated with the petition, and when was it written? Pointing to a graph that is based on data, is what, bad? If you want a politician making correlative statements, watch a youtube video of Jim Inhofe with a snowball. More to the point, the Al Gore rant was attempting to say how one piece or correlation does not prove something, but does not multiple capacities of relation yield strong evidence for a claim and require further research? So the final claim that we need to produce more Greenhouse gases to benefit”…plant and animal environments on Earth.” Doesn’t my first paragraph directly question this?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.