GLENN: 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. I want to switch gears here for just a second because there’s new information coming out now about the Oregon treaty. This is a treaty that was originally signed by I think 17,000 scientists. Signed by about 17,000 scientists and it was basically saying, you know, let’s not get into any kind of Kyoto treaty and CO2 may actually be good. Signed by 17,000. There were discrepancies in it. They were like, oh, look, there were some fake names and there’s some, what was it, fake names and repeats. Not true. There was a Perry Mason there, but the scientist name is really Perry Mason. There was Michael Fox, but it wasn’t Michael J. Fox. It was really a scientist named Michael Fox. And who was the third one, Stu? Oh, yeah, and — what did you say? Yeah, it was a Spice Girl and that was the only one that was on there that shouldn’t have been.
Well, there’s some new news on this treaty that has been signed by 17,000, and Art is not with us. Art has been dropped.
STU: Looks like we lost him.
GLENN: So let’s get Art back on the phone.
STU: This is typical, it’s the typical sort of throw the baby out with the bathwater. You’ve got all these scientists who have looked at this information and have signed onto this petition. It’s just thrown away because there’s one fake name on it. You know, it’s typical to try to demean the other side.
GLENN: So he is — Arthur Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins which I almost got into. I was thinking I was going to do that or this, but I was really into the peptide analytical research.
STU: It was broadcasting or the peptides?
STU: I mean, don’t — I don’t want to say anything but, you know, you chose wrong.
GLENN: Is this guy —
STU: He’s on now.
GLENN: Oh, he’s on now? Art? Art?
GLENN: Arthur, how are you, sir?
ROBINSON: Fine, how are you?
GLENN: Very good. Glad to have you on the program. Tell me the new information here about how many signatures now are part of the treaty?
ROBINSON: Well, we have 31,000 signatures. 9,000 of them have Ph.D. degrees in the relevant sciences and they make two statements. One: That there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing any climate change and that it would be a big mistake to make treaties and agreements to limit carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, they state that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the environment because they stimulate the growth of plants and lead to more plants and animals.
GLENN: See, that’s the only thing I haven’t understood because when I was growing up, we learned in school that carbon dioxide, we breathe it out and the trees breathe it in. That it was —
ROBINSON: That’s right.
GLENN: — kind of a circle of life thing.
ROBINSON: That’s right. And the increase, the increase in the — the most important substances for life are carbon dioxide, water and oxygen. And when you increase the carbon dioxide, you fertilize plants, you get tree growth, the rainforests are growing faster, American forests are growing faster, all the plants around us are growing measure ably faster. There are thousands of research papers showing this. And this, we believe, is a good environmental effect. And since there’s no climate effect that’s been observed of any kind, this is really good for the planet. It’s an unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
GLENN: Hold it just a second. I have never heard any place ever before that American forests are growing faster, that the rainforests are growing — never. Have you, Stu? Have you ever heard that on any media source ever before? Where do you get that information?
ROBINSON: The media doesn’t talk about it. I get it from the research literature at the petitionproject.org. You’ll see the review article that this is based upon and we have 31,000 scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s who have signed the petition based on it because they know it’s true. This is well known research. It’s just that you don’t hear it in the media because it’s not something they want the people to know.
GLENN: I was explaining to my daughter. She’s in college and she said, "Dad, tell me about cap and trade." She said, "Why are we doing that? How does it help?" I said, it doesn’t help, honey, it’s redistributing wealth. That’s all it is. It is a way for governments to earn money. It is a tax. That’s all it is. Is there anything to cap and trade at all? Is there anything to these selling of the carbon units to cap the amount of carbon that is in the atmosphere?
ROBINSON: Yes, it’s one of the most egregious attempts at infringement on human rights that we’ve been faced with. People have a right to access to the technology that makes their lives possible and prosperous, and this is an attempt to extract that technology, to remove some of that technology, to decrease the energy available to them and all technology is based on energy. This thing will lower the prosperity of the American people and in countries where people just have enough technology to stay alive, it will cause some of them to lose their lives, many of them.
GLENN: You know, we hear from the IPCC report that there’s a lot of people that have signed it but then they didn’t agree with all of it, just a little bit of it, et cetera, et cetera. Do scientists —
ROBINSON: That’s right.
GLENN: To sign this petition, you’ve got 31,000 signatures on it now. Do you have to agree with all of it or just some of it?
ROBINSON: All of it, exactly. The petition is exactly the same for everyone. You have to agree with every word. There are 15 times more competent scientists in the relevant fields that have signed this petition than participate in the United Nations process, as they call it. And the people who participate in the United Nations process do not have the right of veto power over what is printed. In other words, things are printed under their name which they don’t agree with. The UN decides what will be printed and it rejects about half the comments made by the scientists themselves whom they represent produced the document. So they have perhaps 900 to 1,000 Ph.D.s involved in this, actually about 600 whom they say are so involved that they share the peace prize with them. Well, we have 9,000. You don’t do science by vote, but you certainly don’t run around saying you have a consensus when the preponderance of scientific opinion is in the opposite direction.
GLENN: Where can people read the petition and where can they see the names of the scientists?
GLENN: Art, do you think this is going to make a difference? Do you think there’s anything that can stop the insanity at this point?
ROBINSON: Well, I hope it does. Ultimately the American people will have to — you know, their prosperity will be diminished as the crazinesses go on and the only thing that could reverse it is if they realize the truth and demand action to get industry off the back and get going with the regulation, taxation and so forth.
GLENN: Thank you.