oh no those 31,000 are all kooks and people on the payroll of big oil.

Peter and Frank and the rest of the followers of this cult religion don't care about facts.

WE are killing Gaia shame on you...lol

That long black cloud is comin' down — Bob Dylan

David: Troll may overlook dubious claims so long as they support his position, but I am suprised you fell for this. You can easily research this petition on Google to find out how bogus it is. The verification of the signatories and degrees has been demonstrated to be a crock, unless you think Perry Mason (a tv character) and Geri Halwell (a Spice Girl) should count. This was disavowed by the National Academy of Sciences, and even the global warming skeptic who promoted the site acknowledged the mistake of trying to publish in the NAS form.

I would also point out that the highest degree of nearly half the people on the petition, even if true, is a college diploma (a B.S.).

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic of global warming or citing credible petitions or papers against it, but you guys consistently undermine your position by relying on whatever comes out on the internet. You can't prevail in persuasion if you attack the mainstream scientific community with witch doctors, cranks and dubious petitions.

Mahons,

Perry Mason isn't real?!

Next you'll be telling us that Sherlock Holmes never existed. Schmuck.

Mahons, right. There are two other misrepresentations associated with this petition (known as the 'oregon petition'), one subtle and one not so subtle.

Firstly, the actual statement in the petition is usually misrepresented (WorldNutDaily does it above). "No convincing evidence for causing catastrophic damage in the foreseeable future" becomes "rejection of global warming" - and of course WND would like you to extrapolate to "no AGW" and "no warming", "evidence for no damage", and "any scientist, animal, plant, or thermometer that says otherwise is a lying commie".

Secondly, the material sent out with the petition is misleading. It purports to be a review of the literature but in fact only consists of arguments against global warming, some of it formatted as if it is a NAS paper when it is not. There is of course no convincing evidence when you leave all the evidence out. Seitz's role of past president of the NAS (in the 60s) is also there to bolster the impression that it is a NAS petition and that the material attached is an honest review of all the evidence. Meanwhile the NAS has issued a statement disassociating itself with the petition.

Re the signatories: Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers—a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

More here

So, these 31,000 are all dupes? Really? Also, just wondering how many of the UN climate change "experts" are climate qualified scientists?

David -The dupes are the people who, all due respect, utilize this petition to advance their position.

David, the people who take that petition as convincing evidence of anything are all dupes.

Moreover, 'convincing evidence for causing catastrophic damage in the foreseeable future' is an extreme statement. The IPCC doesn't say that there is either. The problem is that it is a real possibility and there is no convincing evidence that it won't happen. There are of course the models, which say it probably won't be as bad as all that, but you lot say those are all rubbish. And then there's the IPCC which says severe outcomes are more likely than catastrophe, but you all say they're mistaken.

So, let's get this straight: Anyone who agrees with manmade GW, well, that's fine, they can be the council's refuse collectors or incapacity benefit recepients, it doesn't matter a jot about their qualifications or credentials; they agree with this theory so they're right. But if you dare to disagree, you've got to have all the letters after your name, you've got to be IPCC, ACCA, BS, WGAF, otherwise, "oh no, you're not qualified to dismiss the consensus".
What the heck is a "global warming scientist" anyway? Is there such a discipline? Who awards its qualifications, and from whose politically-motivated pocket comes its finances?
Crock of s***, the lot of it. Please award me an increased budget next year, Senator.

Melanie Phillips still seems far from convinced as well and she cites quite a few scientists in the process. A taster...

Dr Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and another IPCC reviewer, who says
most leading geologists throughout the world know that

'the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible'

and that climate change scientists have launched

'a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil-fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction’.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/719126/brr-the-climate-cools-for-realitydeniers.thtml

On a completely different tangent and worth a post all of it's own it appears the utterly loathsome George Ghalloway has been up to his tricks again.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/721126/unparliamentary-language.thtml

Dear old Melanie. I agree with her on quite a few things - Islam for one. But on AGW she's a carpet-chewer. She will snatch at any "evidence" to back up her denialist faith (yes- it is akin to religion) which says that AGW is a vast anti-western conspiracy to take us back to the stone-age, or even earlier.

As to the "petition", Dr Goebbels would be proud of these guys.

GA,

"a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil-fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction"

Melanie Phillips approval of pretty much any statement on the topic of climate means that it is about as likely to contain accurate information as I am to feature in the 2008 Wimbledon final. After the first 20 or so BS claims from Ms Phillips, it is hard to muster the will to read any more never mind check them out.

Speaking of impossible things, Melanie Phillips once wrote that natural processes emit infinitely more CO2 than human activities. So where is all that CO2? An infinite amount of CO2 would fill the entire universe.

"She will snatch at any "evidence" to back up her denialist faith (yes- it is akin to religion) ..."

But Peter, believing in MMGW is akin to a faith and anyone who disagrees is attacked as a heretic by the believers.

Exactly when was this debate? That is, the one which the believers say "is over". I don't remember hearing it at all.

As an example of the absurdity of the warmists (what is the correct term for their belief system?), a front page article in The Scotsman said that cows are contributing a large percentage of Scotland's 'greenhouse gases'. It was then pointed out that there have always been cows in Scotland so when did they become dangerous? It must have been after the 'debate' which I still don't recall.

Allan,

Can you point us to the debate that went on about gravity, relativity, and the earth being round? Who attended the debates and how did the votes break down?

David,

It seems that hundreds of architects and engineers have signed a petitition saying that 9/11 was staged using explosives.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Does this mean that The debate is NOT over, it has hardly started, and of course just because this large number of [architects and engineers] do not subscribe to [the notion that the WTC was attacked by terrorists] does not make this a fact - but surely it proves that the settled consensus some like [Bush] allege is an illusion?

[And of course if it wasn't terrorists that doesn't mean it is not possible to blame Gore. Gore is, after all, fat, a persuasive argument that has been refuted by nobody]

But Peter, believing in MMGW is akin to a faith and anyone who disagrees is attacked as a heretic by the believers.

Rubbish. AGW is a scientific theory backed by measurement and observation, as you well know. To equate it to sky-god superstition is denialist propaganda. Again, Goebbels would have approved.

Tom - no one said that all oppossed are fakes, but you've got to look at this petition for what it is, a blustering attempt that just fails to be accurate. Don't you want to advance your side with genuine scientific support. You guys lose any credibility when you offer something like this petition.

It is ok to be in a minority opinion, just don't pretend it is a majority one. That self-denial dstroys your point.

Allan,

Can you point us to the debate that went on about gravity, relativity, and the earth being round? Who attended the debates and how did the votes break down?

Frank, what are you talking about?

What the signatories to this petition are proving is that the 'debate' didn't happen and that there is no 'consensus'. The blockade of both of these points is crucial to the MMGW lobby because they must, absolutely must, ensure that there is no debate and that anyone who challenges their belief system must be dealt with as a heretic - mocked, lampooned, and destroyed within their profession. This is exactly what the warmists do, whether or not their theory holds or fails.

Allan,

"Frank, what are you talking about?"

That's what I'm asking you. You seem to believe that scientific questions are put to debate and you complain that this has not happened for AGW. I don't recall any debate on any scientific theory. Perhaps you can list a few scientific theories that were decided by a debate, and tell us where these debates took place and who attended them.

Frank, Peter, rather than have a dig at Melanie Phillips shouldn't you be focusing on the claims of all the scientists, some of whom were IPCC contributors, she lists in her article? One things for sure Frank the MMGW theory is not akin to gravity or the earth being round. When 'Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation' ... 'says the IPCC’s ice-core research is wrong and that therefore it has based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false' should we dismiss him as we'd dismiss someone who questioned whether apples really do fall from trees to the ground? Perhaps the 'measurement and observation' Peter confidently cites as evidence of AGW isn't completely accurate, as the above quote indicates is possible. In that case shouldn't a debate continue? Isn't that what science is all about? If scientists of the calibre mentioned in Melanie Phillips article have doubts or positions contrary to the 'consensus' I'd like to know about it and the implications discussed. Is that too much to ask?

GA,

"When 'Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation' ... 'says the IPCC’s ice-core research is wrong and that therefore it has based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false' should we dismiss him as we'd dismiss someone who questioned whether apples really do fall from trees to the ground?"

Yes.

The IPCC doesn't do research.

Frank, it is the proponents of MMGW who say that "the debate is over". OK, where and when was the 'debate'? I didn't raise the matter of debate but it is used by the warmists as a means to close down any argument. So, where and when was the 'debate' which the warmists keep telling us is over?

Allan,

"Frank, it is the proponents of MMGW who say that "the debate is over"

But it is you who wrote this:

"they must, absolutely must, ensure that there is no debate"

Ergo it is you who claims a 'debate' is important regarding scientific matters.

What other scientific matters have been decided by a debate, Allan?

I would say that most scientific matters which are not settled are the subject of on-going debate by experts in the field as they must be - a scientific case must withstand scrutiny and debate. The matter of MMGW is not settled and should be debated, especially as more evidence is made available.

The proponents of MMGW insist that "the debate is over" but the science is not settled therefore there can be no end to the debate.

Tell us all, Frank, do you have any doubts as to the reality of MMGW?

Allan,

"I would say that most scientific matters which are not settled are the subject of on-going debate by experts in the field as they must be - a scientific case must withstand scrutiny and debate."

And where would this scrutiny and debate take place?

Indeed it is hard to think of a theory that has had more scrutiny and debate than this one.

"Tell us all, Frank, do you have any doubts as to the reality of MMGW?"

I have not seen any convincing evidence that MMGW is not happening - if there were you would be all over it like white on rice a BNP meeting - and there is plenty of evidence that MMGW is happening.

It is also quite amusing to see you 'sceptics' claim that this petition is proof of something. If this petition constitutes proof of anything then your standard of evidence is clearly pretty low and it is simply laughable for you to claim that the evidence for MMGW does not exceed it.

As I have said many times, when the 'evidence' is against MMGW, you sceptics act like credulous fools and ask no questions. When it is for it, you act like solipsists, not sceptics. In fact you even deny mathematical truths if that's what it takes. It could not be more obvious that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Frank

What would you take as evidence that global warming is not necessarily caused by man? Would there be any such evidence that you might accept?

Allan,

"I would say that most scientific matters which are not settled are the subject of on-going debate by experts in the field as they must be - a scientific case must withstand scrutiny and debate."

And where would this scrutiny and debate take place?

Frank, the scrutiny and debate is taking place now, in front of you. NASA's figures are challenged by blogging scientists: the IPCC, the 'hockey stick' etc. - all being challenged, and that really annoys the warmists.

Phantom,

Well there are lots of things that would constitute such evidence, although many of them would seem to require repealing the laws of physics. The most obvious one is if an alternate theory accumulated enough evidence to become the mainstream theory. Or if the confidence intervals of the long term temperature trend included zero with no known cause that would be pretty good evidence. Lots of other things could undermine confidence that they understand what is going on, even if AGW itself was still not disproven - there's already some of that but it is in the direction that things are worse than supposed.

And you? How much evidence do you need before you would regard MMGW as being well supported by the evidence?

And in the same vein:

How many times must the climate inactivists’ various statements be outright falsified before they’ll admit that they full of crap and just leave things to the real experts?

I’m not talking about falsifiability, I’m talking about falsification which has already happened.

First it was “Hansen predicted global cooling” — false. Then it was “’scientists’ in general predicted global cooling” — false (as shown by Connolley). Then it was “global temperature drop from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 cancels out 100 years of warming” — and guess what, in March the temperature shoots right back up. So, inactivists, how many more of your statements must be proven to be completely false before you’ll shut up and find something else to do?

http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/falsifiability-falsification-and-conspiracy-theories/

Allan,

"Frank, the scrutiny and debate is taking place now, in front of you."

If so then the stuff you shovel up is not passing scrutiny.

Yours likewise, Frank. You are a true believer.

Frank

Have no idea what the first paragraph of your 819 means in any practical fashion

This is such a vast subject. I think it largely unprovable either way. And here, you implicitly agree with me by not saying in plain English what evidence would convince you that MMGW was not true.

The fact that the MMGW fans respond to any questioning with rage and a shoutdown to me indicates that the theory is flawed. If it were not, big Al and his friends would be happy to debate rather than "educate" on issues that are "beyond dispute"

I'm in favor of 99% of the things that MMGW fans are for --reduced energy consumption, reduced emissions, ultra high efficiency appliances, new technologies --that can be justified on many grounds other than GW.

By placing so much emphasis on GW, its fans may have done the larger environmental movement a grave disservice. Because large numbers of people who might have been convinced of the need for environmental change are not buying big Al's hand jive on MMGW.

Allan, please repost your scrutiny of the petition referenced in David's article.

You know, the part where you immediately accepted it as proof despite some, uh, problems that were pointed out.

Mahons is right, interpreting this petition as something meaningful only harms the anti-AGW case. The reports are intentionally misleading, first of all. Apparently to be a scientist it only takes an undergraduate degree, and what they were signing was not a statement that AGW isn't occurring. Also the signatures were acquired over the course of 10 years, so it can hardly be a contemporary estimate. As someone described above, many would not likely sign it today.

Phantom,

"And here, you implicitly agree with me by not saying in plain English what evidence would convince you."

No I don't 'implictly agree with you'. In fact I stated an observation that would show that MMGW wasn't necessarily true. The long term trend (~30 years) can be calculated using statistical techniques and those come with confidence intervals - upper and lower bounds at a certain probability, usually 95%. If either of those include 0 then it means it might be warming or it might be cooling. If that happened and no physical cause explained it (no reduction in solar output, no reduction in CO2, no volcanic eruption, etc) then I think that would strongly contradict AGW. Similarly if the whole confidence interval was below zero, that would mean that it was very likely cooling.

Right now the confidence interval is all above 0. We also have the Hadley Centre making predictions that half the years after 2009 will beat the 1998 record. There are also predictions of the trend that are much tighter than I have described above, and observations outside that interval would falsify those. So no, it's not unfalsifiable.

On the other side of the aisle, pretty much everything that the denialists put forward that can be falisified has been. The rest is conspiracy theory, and naturally evidence against the conspiracy becomes part of the conspiracy.

"The fact that the MMGW fans respond to any questioning with rage and a shoutdown "

...is a confidently asserted falsehood, not a fact.

"I'm in favor of 99% of the things that MMGW fans are for --reduced energy consumption, reduced emissions, ultra high efficiency appliances, new technologies --that can be justified on many grounds other than GW."

Yes they can. Quite aside from GW, CO2 is acidifying the oceans for example. That is basic chemistry.

>>I don't recall any debate on any scientific theory.<<

There were actually some interesting ones (which also wasn't very unlike this one!)

And, (it can't be restated enough)

if you went to ultra-efficient vehicles/appliances and new technology thereby radically reducing the demand for oil, you defang many of the world's worst regimes and re-leverage the West as a side benefit

Any proper conservative or nationalist should be an absolute militant on the issue of environmentalism and freeing ourselves from foreign energy sources. I'd rather pay $1000 for an energy "Manhattan Project" than pay another ten cents into Saudi Arabia or any of the other bad countries that supply us and who now have the leverage over us.

Phantom, agreed. But we don't have those vehicles/appliances and new technology - so given that we need to reduce CO2 emissions (and it's just silly to deny it on current evidence) how do you suggest we go about it?

Manhattan project, yes. And if that doesn't deliver in time, then what? We just suffer? Does it take reaching 1000ppm and a few environmental 9/11s before we take some action like putting a price on carbon?

Let me think about this a bit, and I'll come up with a program that should enrage everyone

Here are a few more converts to the 'realist' camp (their words not mine)...

The past couple of years have seen many prominent scientists, including former leading global-warming alarmists, converting to the climate “skeptic” or “realist” camp. However, most Americans are unaware of these defections, since the major media censor these stories, while continuing to hype unfounded predictions of impending climate catastrophe.
One of the most recent scientists to switch sides is Dr. Kerry Emanuel, professor of Atmospheric Science at M.I.T. and the most famous proponent of the claim that man-made global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes. But in March Dr. Emanuel and two associates pulled a great reversal, publishing an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association reporting on their new computer modeling that suggests hurricane frequency and intensity may not rise over the next two centuries even if warmer trends continue. “The results surprised me,” Emanuel said of his work in an interview with the Houston Chronicle in April. **“The take-home message is that we’ve got a lot of work to do. There’s still a lot of uncertainty in this problem.”**
Dr. Miklos Zagoni, one of Hungary’s most prominent physicists and global-warming activists, now says: “Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations” and the most recent research data. Emanuel and Zagoni join many other recent converts from climate alarmism, such as: Canadian fisheries expert Dr. Tad Murty; French geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre; Australian mathematician Dr. David Evans; Canadian paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark; Polish physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski; and Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv. Famed British botanist and climate alarmist Dr. David Bellamy now calls global-warming fears “poppycock” and says “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.”

Crikey, I didn't know even David Bellamy had change his mind.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/8002

I'd rather pay $1000 for an energy "Manhattan Project" than pay another ten cents into Saudi Arabia or any of the other bad countries that supply us and who now have the leverage over us.

Couldn't agree more Phantom. In fact I'll start saving now.

GA, when do you start being sceptical of your own stuff?

Dr. Kerry Emanuel
"**“The take-home message is that we’ve got a lot of work to do. There’s still a lot of uncertainty in this problem.”**"

He is talking about the link between AGW and hurricanes, not AGW. What does the IPCC AR4 say about that link? How is what he said a 'defection' or a 'switch of sides'?

"Dr. Miklos Zagoni, one of Hungary’s most prominent physicists and global-warming activists, now says: “Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations” "

Which runaway greenhouse theories? Which pages do those theories appear on in IPCC AR4?

And since you're a sceptic GA, I know you will have spotted another problem with his statement. Clue: Venus.

Frank, I'm fully aware it was only one component of the AGW theory I merely highlighted his statement because it seemed pertinent to the 'debate' we're having.

Venus isn't the Earth Frank. There are subtle differences.

GA,

"Venus isn't the Earth Frank. There are subtle differences"

Venus doesn't have different physics.

Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations, remember?

Venus has CO2 as high-% whilst Earth has CO2 as ppm, and CH4 as ppb. Very big difference!

This link is good as a basis for understanding the case for MMGW and why it could be wrong.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Allan,

"Venus has CO2 as high-% whilst Earth has CO2 as ppm, and CH4 as ppb. Very big difference!"

Venus still doesn't have different laws of physics. A difficulty for Dr Zagoni.

Venus also has about the same amount of carbon as earth but in Venus it is in the atmosphere and on earth it is mostly in the ground. Since Venus is hot enough to melt lead there could be an important lesson for us there as we take the carbon from the ground and put it in the atmosphere.

"This link is good as a basis for understanding the case for MMGW and why it could be wrong."

And the published science of the last 100 years and more is good as a basis for understanding why it is probably right.