Emergency Petition Form Maryland Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

Britons who feel outraged that the new Prime Minister might “prorogue” Parliament in order to bring about a “no deal” Brexit - to use the power to “prorogue” as a means of silencing opposition to a Ministerial policy - should look back with greater sympathy upon the American colonists of the pre-Declaration of Independence period.The first five specific grievances charged against King George III name his interference with the sitting, deliberating, and law-making activities of the elected colonial legislative assemblies.In the American federal and state governmental systems, there is no power to “prorogue,” and indeed, American readers will require an explanation of what “prorogue” means.In the British system - whose formalities exist today - no legislature is a law-making body. It is, instead a law-recommending body. The entity that makes laws is the Crown. British constitutional practice ensures that the Crown always adopts the recommendations made jointly by the Commons and the Lords (although there is a rarely-used procedure where the Lords are bypassed) and thus, in effect, the Parliament does make the laws.In America under the federal and state systems, the legislatures are the real lawmaking bodies. Laws become laws unless the President or the Governor vetoes them. Signature, though mandated as a duty upon the President, is not necessary for a Congressional bill to become law; the bill can sit unsigned on the President’s desk for ten days and, provided that Congress remains in session during those ten days, it becomes law without any action by the President.The American system of government has this fundamental feature precisely because of the terrible experience the Americans suffered under the British system, including the power to “prorogue.”Now, it appears, the British people object as strenuously to this system in 2019, as the Americans did in 1776.In the American colonial period, in the eight colonies wherein the king (by his ministers) appointed the governors, there was no custom and no assurance that the governor would in fact adopt every law-recommendation from the Assembly and the Council.Because in these royal-governor colonies a colonial Assembly was considered a law-recommending body, not a law-making body, the concept was that it sat only during such periods as the governor felt it necessary to make new laws. If the governor did not feel the necessity for any law-recommendations, he could send the legislators home, until he might feel the need of them again.This power to suspend the sitting of the legislature is called the power to “prorogue.” The legislators remain in-office, and can reconvene on call of the Governor without a re-election, but they cannot meet, cannot vote on and adopt resolutions, cannot maintain sitting committees.A second power of such Royal Governors was the power to “dissolve” the legislature. In Britain today, the “Fixed-term Parliament Act” is intended to wipe-out this power, but it was a second power held by a Royal Colonial Governor, which also had the effect of ending the ability of the legislature to sit, vote recommended laws, vote resolutions, etc. The difference between “prorogue” and “dissolve” was that after a dissolution, all legislators were out-of-office, and no legislature could convene until there had been a general colony-wide election - and no such election could occur unless the Royal Governor called for it to occur, by issuing “writs of election” to the various legislative districts.A third power of such Royal Governors was the power to specify the location where the legislature would convene. In Massachusetts in 1772–1773, the Royal Governor used this power to pick inconvenient places, effectively harassing the legislators by making their lives more difficult, unless they agreed to vote what the Governor wanted, and chose not to vote things the Governor opposed.In the long study I researched in 2016–2017, and which SSRN posted in September 2017, I report in detail all of these “prorogue,” “dissolve,” and “inconvenient location” actions, beginning in 1768, and then summarize the last date on which each colonial legislature met, at pages 529–532, as follows.The list omits Connecticut and Rhode Island, whose governors were elected, and which never suspending sittings of their legislatures. Maryland and Pennsylvania, which included Delaware, had appointed governors, but by authority of each respective “proprietary” family, and thus these were not Royal Governors.After the date noted, that colony’s legislature never again met.Appointed-Governor-Ordered Assembly Shut-Downs Before the First Continental Congress.South Carolina: 29 August 1770.Tax function of government terminated by appointed Royal Council & Lt. Gov. Bull, over contribution for Wilkes campaign for Parliament. House not dissolved, but with tax-raising to fund expenses of colony government terminated, government functioning was ended. On August 2, 1774, the lawful House would ratify the election of delegates to the 1st Continental Congress as done by an extra-legal convention in early July 1774, without obstruction by native-born Lt. Governor William Bull, in the absence of appointed governor Lord William Campbell, who had not yet arrived to take up his office.Maryland: 19 April 1774.Last session adjourned normally, and not over freedom of speech issue. The lawful House had chosen a Committee of Correspondence on October 15, 1773, without being prorogued or dissolved by appointed proprietary Governor Eden. Governor Eden left for Britain in late May, 1774, and the House was not in session for the election of delegates to the 1st Continental Congress. Never reconvened by Gov. Eden after his return from London on November 8, 1774. Governor Eden never took any actions against the extra-legal Convention either; in substance he preemptively left his lawful government in “shut-down mode” as of April 19, 1774, stayed in Maryland, and allowed the people of Maryland to grow a replacement.Virginia: 26 May 1774.Dissolved by Governor Dunmore, to suppress words in resolution for a fast regarding Boston Port Act. This prevented the elected House from electing delegates to the 1st Continental Congress, which was done by an extra-legal convention on August 1, 1774. Governor Dunmore would not reconvene the House until June 1, 1775, and then a week later, Dunmore himself fled, leaving the House without a Governor. The House would adjourn itself on June 24, never to meet again (too few members would attend on the chosen reconvene date to make quorum). Dunmore, from a warship offshore, would act vigorously against the growth of the replacement Convention.New Hampshire: 8 June 1774.Dissolved by Governor Wentworth, to prevent electing delegates to 1st Continental Congress; never again re-elected and reconvened. Wentworth would flee to Boston under the protection of Gage, leaving no obstruction to the growth of the replacement Congress.Massachusetts: 17 June 1774.Dissolved by Governor Gage, to prevent funding expenses of delegates elected to 1st Continental Congress; Gage would have dissolved the House prior to its electing delegates, but the House acted too quickly for him to do so. Never again re-elected and reconvened. Gage, from fortified Boston and by warships, would act vigorously against the growth of the replacement Congress.Appointed-Governor-Ordered Assembly Shut-Downs After the First Continental Congress.Georgia: 10 February 1775.Prorogued, not dissolved, by Governor Wright, to prevent electing delegates to 2nd Continental Congress. It would reconvene. Royal vs. resistance authority would see-saw in Georgia.New York: 3 April 1775.Last session adjourned normally, and not over freedom of speech issue. Never shut-down over free speech, because there was never a majority in the elected Assembly that voted any speech or actions offensive to the ministers, except a March 25, 1775 Petition to the King. The Assembly did form a Committee of Correspondence (January 20, 1774) but never adopted any statements, nor elected delegates to either Continental Congress, and thus did not suffer any shut-downs. Governor Tryon having been out of the colony from April 7, 1774, until mid-June 1775, it would be Lt. Gov. Colden who would call the Assembly into session on January 10, 1775. During this session Jan. 10 to April 3, 1775, the lawful Assembly rejected repeated motions (Jan. 26, Feb. 17, Feb. 21) to affirm the actions of the First Continental Congress, and refused to appoint delegates to the Second Continental Congress (Feb. 23). The lawful New York Assembly shared the same sense of grievances and principles as the other colonies, but rejected the strategy of a unifying but “extra-legal” Continental Congress. Instead, it adopted a “colony-only” petition to the King (March 25), in the belief that the ministers were sincere in stating that a colony-only petition would be heard. As we will see, the ministers lied. After approving this petition the Assembly adjourned April 3, 1775 – shortly before the fighting at Lexington & Concord on April 19, 1775. The lawful New York Assembly never convened again. Governor Tryon, on his return in mid-June 1775, would try to act against the growth of the replacement Congress.North Carolina: 8 April 1775.Dissolved by Governor Martin, because the representatives had simultaneously participated in an extra-legal Provincial Congress; never again re-elected and reconvened. Martin, from a warship offshore, would act vigorously against the growth of the replacement Congress.Appointed-Governor-Ordered Assembly Shut-Downs After the Second Continental Congress:New Jersey: 6 December 1775.Never shut-down over free speech, even though it formed a Committee of Correspondence (February 8, 1774). The lawful House was adjourned from March 11, 1774, to January 11, 1775, so the election of delegates for the 1st Continental Congress was by the extra-legal New Jersey Convention on July 23, 1774. The lawful House elected the same persons delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress, by its own vote on Jan. 26, 1775, and also ratified the actions of the 1st Continental Congress, without any “shut down” actions by Governor William Franklin, who prorogued the session on February 13, 1775, after completing the normal course of legislative business, and adopting a Petition to the king. On May 15, 1775, Governor Franklin reconvened the lawful Assembly to consider “Lord North’s Conciliatory Resolution,” but the Assembly chose to defer to the Second Continental Congress, which would condemn the “Conciliatory Resolution” on July 31, 1775. On November 15, 1775 Governor Franklin again reconvened the Assembly, urging the lawful elected Representatives to reject Congress’rejection, and accept the “Conciliatory Resolution;” after emergency personal appearances by John Jay, John Dickinson, and George Wyeth on December 6, 1775, the Assembly chose to take no action, and adjourned, never to reconvene. The resistance would soon put Governor Franklin under house arrest, preventing his undertaking further efforts to discredit the Continental Congress.Pennsylvania:Never shut-down over free speech, or any other reason. It did not form a Committee of Correspondence but did elect delegates to the 1st Continental Congress (July 22, 1774). It elected delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress (Dec. 15, 1774). The lawful House of Assembly convened after this, on Feb. 20 to March 18, 1775, and then reconvened on May 1, 1775. Governor Penn offered to them “Lord North’s Conciliatory resolution,” which the House rejected on May 4; on May 9 the House added deputies, and adopted instructions to those deputies. House Speaker John Morton offered the House’s own meeting-room in the State House for the Second Continental Congress, and the House moved itself upstairs to a smaller room, where it was in session while the Second Continental Congress was in session; Governor Penn was also in the same building. The House would continue to meet sporadically through the entire resistance period and into September 1776, and Governor Penn took no actions against the lawful Pennsylvania House for any of this.Delaware:Never shut-down over free speech, or any other reason. It formed a Committee of Correspondence on October 23, 1773, and, although not formally convened, met and elected delegates to the 1st Continental Congress (August 1, 1774). Governor Penn never criticized them or penalized them for this extra-legal action. On March 15, 1775, the House approved of its actions of August 1774, and also approved of the actions of the First Continental Congress; the next day, March 16, the House elected delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress. On March 29, 1775, the House adopted instructions to its delegates. The House met again in June 1775, and August 1775, and October 1775, and June 1776, and July 1776, all without any obstruction or condemnation by Proprietary Governor Penn, until it replaced itself with a new constitutional government.In the Declaration of Independence, the very first five grievances focus directly on King George III’s suppression of American colonial legislatures:He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.Britons today who object to the prospect of the “prorogue” power used to bring about a “no deal Brexit” now, at long last, understand why the Americans from 1766 through 1776 were so firm in resistance to Parliament and ultimately, to the King, as at last to declare independence from him.A particularly apt example of the use of the power to “prorogue” to suppress the dissent of elected representatives comes from 1768, when the Colony Minister, Lord Hillsborough, ordered all colonial governors to “prorogue” their assemblies if the assemblies gave any sign of being about to vote against Parliament’s claim to have all lawmaking power in America. The circumstances justify your brief attention; I researched this in detail in my 2017 study.In 1765, Parliament adopted a “Stamp Act” that had the effect of imposing taxes throughout the colonies; unexpected vociferous colonial opposition forced Parliament to repeal the tax, but Parliament simultaneously in March 1766 adopted a “Declaratory Act” proclaiming that the Parliament of Great Britain had all lawmaking power in the colonies, and overrode all colonial assemblies.The colonists rejected the legal and constitutional legitimacy of this; I have mentioned the merits of their opposition in other Quora answers in recent days, but the merits are not relevant to the precise point we are looking at here. Suffice it to say, the colonists disagreed with Parliament’s claim. Parliament tried adopting several different subsequent tax acts, which also provoked colonial condemnation.In particular, on February 11, 1768, the Massachusetts House adopted a statement that it sent to all other colony assemblies, in what was called a “circular letter.” The letter is at pages 189–191 of my study; a key section is this:“[H]is Majesty’s American subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance, have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental rules of the British constitution; that it is an essential, unalterable right in nature, engrafted into the British constitution, as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within the realm, that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent; that the American subjects may, therefore, exclusive of any consideration of charter rights, with a decent firmness, adapted to the character of free men and subjects, assert this natural and constitutional right. It is, moreover, their [the Massachusetts House] humble opinion, which they express with the greatest deference to the wisdom of the Parliament, that the Acts made there [in Parliament], imposing duties on the people of this province, with the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue, are infringements of their natural and constitutional rights; because, as they are not represented in the British Parliament, his Majesty’s commons in Britain, by those Acts, grant their property without their consent.”On April 21, 1768, on receiving a copy of the Massachusetts “circular letter,” the Colony Minister, Lord Hillsborough, wrote his own “circular letter” to the governors of the American colonies, demanding that every elected representative House of Assembly in America should treat the Massachusetts House’s February 11, 1768, circular letter with contempt, and that if any elected Assembly tried to honor it, the governor was to immediately prorogue the assembly. Lord Hillsborough’s letter is in my study at pages 197–198:“I have his Majesty’s commands to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay [February 11, 1768], addressed by order of that House to the Speaker of the Assembly of each colony upon the continent of North America.“As his Majesty considers this measure to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution, it is his Majesty’s pleasure that you should, immediately upon the receipt hereof, exert your utmost influence to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace, by prevailing upon the Assembly of your province to take no notice of it, which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves.…“[I]f notwithstanding these expectations and your most earnest endeavours, there should appear in the Assembly of your Province, a disposition to receive or give an countenance to this seditious paper, it will be your duty to prevent any proceeding upon it, by an immediate prorogation or dissolution.”To list here in this Quora answer the results of Lord Hillsborough’s demand that very Governor prorogue every assembly that showed notice and respect to the Massachusetts February 11, 1768 letter would make this answer much too long; anyone interested can download my study from SSRN, or request the most recent typo-corrected copy from me in pdf.The relevant point here is that on April 21, 1768, Lord Hillsborough, a high Minister of the Crown, sought to use the power to “prorogue” as a means to silence the voices of the people’s elected representatives, on an issue of much greater importance than “Brexit:” the issue of the legitimacy of elective representative self-government. This produced such distaste among Americans as to ensure that no power to “prorogue” exists in any American government.And the power to “prorogue” ought not exist in the United Kingdom either.One last note: the question notes that a former Prime Minister is considering going to the judiciary for a judicial injunction preventing the sitting Prime Minister from requesting the Crown to prorogue. Do Britons realize just how American that is - and how so totally not British? The idea that a judge could intercept the action of a Prime Minister in speaking to the Crown - I like it, but then I am an American.But in all of British governmental practice, the idea is extraordinary. It is a change Britain ought to make, despite it being an American-style importation into the British government.

There is no danger and no threat. In fact about 500 scientists and other knowledgable people just petitioned the UN: “There is no climate emergency.” Link here: “There is no climate emergency.”That was not the first such letter to the UN. Here is another one.Open letter by 100 scientists to UN Secretary General.Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General,United Nations New York, N.Y.Dec. 13, 2007Dear Mr. Secretary-General,Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.*In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08- 14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.Yours faithfully,The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia2. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S.3. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-20004. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark5. Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada6. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist,7. Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany8. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal9. Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.10. Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Look, Feel, & Smell your best. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S.11. Dan Carruthers, http://M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada12. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia13. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada14. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.15. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand16. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.17. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S.18. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.19. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia20. Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands21. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S.22. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada23. David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak’, Australia24. William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.25. Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia26. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa27. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.28. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany29. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay30. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden31. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, New Zealand32. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S.33. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.34. Louis Hissink, M.Sc., M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia35. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S.36. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA37. Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia38. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia39. Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden40. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia41. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S.42. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand43. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor “Climate Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 200744. William Kininmonth http://M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology45. Jan J.H. Kop, http://M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands46. Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands47. Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands48. Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands49. The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.50. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada51. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.52. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant – power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand53. William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.54. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.55. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors56. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.57. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia58. Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany59. John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand60. Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.61. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada62. John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia63. Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director – Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand64. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada65. Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University, Canada66. Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway67. Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia68. Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden69. Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic70. John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia71. Mr. David Nowell, http://M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada72. James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S.73. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia74. Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia75. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada76. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.77. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia78. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada79. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences80. Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force81. R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.82. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands83. Rob Scagel, http://M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada84. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway85. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.86. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service87. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada88. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.89. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden90. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute91. Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands92. Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.93. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand94. Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia95. Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.96. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany97. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland98. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.99. Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia100. Antonio Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.Dec. 13, 2007# # #Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is ‘Futile’World's Top Scientists 'Manmade Warming' Is A Dangerous Lie