This is the same petition that has been discussed before. It isn't worth the paper it is printed on. If one is going to argue againstGW hat is all well and god, but using a credible source would make the argument credible.

Mahons, why is a petition which disagrees with your views "not worth the paper it's printed on" yet another petition which does agree with your views is beyond reproach?

Allan -it isn't that is disagrees with my views, it is that it is fraught with fraud and error and thus is a castle made of sand. I'd suggest you look into it and you'll discover it forms a poor basis for credible debate. There must be some better sources that could be drawn from among the skeptic population.

Mahons, what exactly are the problems with the credibility of the sceptics' petition as compared with the MMGW-ers' petition?

I am sure some of the 31,217 signatures are not real

The 9000 phds however were verified and certified. What cracks me up is the same people who will cry about the accuracy of this document are the same people who swear by the accuracy of models and theories that have yet to give the same results twice.

You are either believe your gonna fry from the breath that you exhale or you don't believe it.

personally I think you have a better chance of getting fryed from one of the new Iranian airburst missiles than from AGW. After all Britain is in its flight range.

As for this post I don't feel likr agruing with religious zealots today so that's my last word on the subject (for today)

Mahons,

"There must be some better sources that could be drawn from among the skeptic population."

That's just it, there aren't. They have to scrape the bottom of the barrel every time. The more credible ones tend to accept the basic theory but just think the problem overblown. There are as many credible scientists who think the problem is even worse than commonly believed.

The real joke is that those who find this petition credible call themselves skeptics. You'd think uber-skeptics like that would find one or two issues with it.

The petition claims that carbon dioxide is in fact beneficial for plant and animal life on the planet.

Would this be among the benefits?

"The burgeoning amount of carbon dioxide in oceans is affecting a lot more than coral reefs. It is also damaging marine life and, most ominously, threatening the future survival of marine populations."

Link here

Not that I expect the denialists to debate the science. Ever. It's the politics with you guys, first and last.

personally I think you have a better chance of getting fryed from one of the new Iranian airburst missiles than from AGW.

Probably found a warehouse full of them with seal of the president on all the crates.

The 9000 phds however were verified and certified.

I hope they are all global climate specialists. Or does that rule only count for the communist doom-mongers?

Peter: "The petition claims that carbon dioxide is in fact beneficial for plant and animal life on the planet.

Would this be among the benefits?"

This be true, my dear boy! Just as water is beneficial, it can also kill you if you drink too much. But to deny that it is beneficial is just plain ridiculous.

Mahons: Am I boring you? Repeating the truth, over and over?

Patty

So you agree that the oceans are being seriously affected by the CO2 we are belching out. Even if AGW is wrong, this should give great cause for concern.

So the MMGW-ers have a petition, and that's OK. The sceptics have a petition but that's not OK.

What exactly are the differences in controls over the credentials of the signatories to each respective petition which gives the former greater credibility than the latter?

"What exactly are the differences in controls over the credentials of the signatories to each respective petition which gives the former greater credibility than the latter?"

Well Allan, as a sceptic I'm surprised you can't figure that out yourself. For example, one of them seems to include rather a lot of dead people and the other does not. One of them does not include people with relevant experience and the other does. One of them includes people with plenty of publications in the field and the other includes people with none. One of them includes people with no postgraduate degree of any kind, and the other doesn't. One includes many nobel prize winners and the other doesn't. One included a member of the spice girls and the other didn't.

See if you can guess which is which, but here is a comparison to help you out:

A random sample (the first five names from the list alphabetically) would be Earl M. Aagaard, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron.

1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).

5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

Compare these to the first five authors alpha listed for the IPCC AR4 WG1 The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change:

1. Krishna Achutarao. Research Scientist at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Relevant publications: plenty.

2. Robert Adler. NASA Senior Scientist in the Laboratory for Atmospheres and is also currently serving as Project Scientist for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Relevant publications: plenty.

3. Lisa Alexander. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Relevant publications: plenty.

4. Hans Alexandersson. Climatologist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Relevant publications: plenty.

5. Richard Allan. Atmospheric scientist, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading. Relevant publications: plenty.

Which you can read with links to the research here:

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/

And this guy went through a random sample of 60 from the 'sceptics' petition, including 54 phds (actually he gave the 'sceptics' a break and included more phds). Number of relevant publications between them, Zero.

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/

Is a 'relevant' publication one which supports MMGW? If so, then this one isn't relevant and the authors are shysters:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf

And who the hell is this guy to disagree with MMGW?

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#satellite-temps

Patty: You certainly are repeating yourself, whether it is the truth or not is quite another story.

Allan,

"Is a 'relevant' publication one which supports MMGW?"

A relevant publication is one relevant to the topic of climate change.

So now can you see the difference between the two petitions Allan?

Frank

You are an extremely skilled debater, and you may want to consider a life in public affairs, or a career as a writer / polemicist. You, and we, could do worse.

Phantom, why thank you sir. Sadly I do not think I could earn a crust in any of the fields you mention but I've always wanted to write a book.

Pick a subject that really interests you, and just do it. Trust me on this one.

That's the difficulty, picking one idea and getting on with it...also carving out a chunk of time to do it. That is why I give a lot of kudos to David for actually completing one!

Now I must go look at the apple conference to see what Mr Jobs has come up with this time to part me from my money and to make me feel like my 1 year old macbook is no better than a simple stone.