Without even mentioning the vast number of duplicate names (go check it out for yourself, pick a state), 90% of the “scientists” on there are not even in climatology or any related field. Most of them are in completely unrelated subjects, and do not have experience or recent education in the subject of climate change/global warming. Anybody can be a skeptic, but that doesn’t mean they are credible.

I don’t go to a Mathemetician to try my case in court. I go to an Attorney.
I don’t go to an Economist to remove my tumor. I go to a Surgeon.
I don’t go to an Anthropologist to manage my stock portfolio. I go to a licensed Financial Advisor.
And I don’t go to a Mechanical Engineer who designs air conditioning systems for my house, to educate me about climate change.

There may be some climatologists or related scientists who have signed this bogus petition, but who would know because the list has been so fluffed up with air, to make it look bigger than it is.

If these guys were truly credible, they wouldn’t take just any old person who has a degree. It makes the whole thing look shady.

Not to mention it prominently includes people like Ian Clark, Lindzen, Robinson, Seitz, and Tim Patterson. Anyone who has spent hours and hours reading about this very complicated topic has already come across tons of material that discredits these quacks. Oh yeah, and the “Oregon Institue” that created the petition is a non-profit run by 6 people. SIX. So don’t get all excited thinking the word Institute gives it any weight or credibility. It’s only reason for existence was to create this bogus petition. It has no other function.

PS – meteorologists are weathermen.

REPLY: And “concerned citizen” is another anonymous coward – the opinion value of anonymous cowards is even lower than “quacks”

Just like Stevie Ray Vaughan’s song…

“The wall of denial….must come crumb-lin’ down….down…to the ground!”

Heh.

A small victory this is. But in order for a war to be won (or settled in our case), battles must be won first.

I didnt think that there was one bit of “fact” in the entire paper.

Would scientific method and error bars and method validations be a good start?

You may also be interested in some of her advice: Improving How Scientists Communicate About Climate Change. I perceive her influence on the draft report!!

After reading through portions of the report, I can appreciate Dr. Herman’s restraint when referring to the information as controversial, incomplete and misleading.

In addition to the sociopathic phrases “people are at the heart of this problem, we are causing it,” “human-induced climate change” (true locally in the urbanization sense) and “global warming is unequivocal and is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases and other pollutants” (CO2 is not a pollutant and NASA scientists should know better), the content of the Key Finding is nothing more than statements of the obvious.

Bullet #2, marked as “NEW,” expresses surprise that Nature has not conformed to the projections of their computer models.

The About This Report section, pages 14 and 15, seems to indicate an incestuous bias, judging from the referenced sources of information.

I will not argue against Nature’s natural cycles. I will accept and adapt.

I will not accept the premise that there is global warming/climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions without any scientific factual proof. Anecdotal speculation is not science and it is not proof.

We can be eternally grateful to the Creator and the Creator’s visible and invisible presence, Nature, and that humans do not and cannot control Nature, in view of the disastrous results of human (government) control over other aspects of our life.

Computer models are not reality (they are the biased product of an inadequately informed programmer).

Nature is reality.

Much significance is attached by AGW protagonists to the importance of peer review. In reality, it is a sham. Peer reviewers are carefully vetted/chosen to ensure that they are of like mind. In extreme cases, such as the Mann, Bradley, Hughes clique, so-called peer review is an exclusively internal and incestuous process. Hansen has been exposed as fraudster or, if not, as grossly incompetent. Only GISS continues to insist on a rising temperature trend – not Hadley, RSS or UAH. In direct defiance of IPCC rules, Hansen will disclose neither his data or his methodology, except when forced to do so under freedom of information legislation. Even NASA, in a separate embodiment, has acknowledged from its Argos buoy network that ocean temperatures are in decline, ie one of the fundamental signatures of the AGW hypothesis does not exist. Neither do tropical tropospheric temperature increases, another critical signature (in fact, a sine qua non), and neither do polar temperature increases, yet another. There is not a single piece of empirical evidence drawn from observation in the real world to support the hypothesis which, anyway, is innately implausible on purely a priori grounds.

The man in the street doesn’t need self-proclaimed experts to tell him that the temperature trend is downwards. His own nervous system provides him with all the evidence he requires – one reason why, in the UK at least, opinion polls have steadily registered scepticism as the dominant aspect of public opinion.

The public are right. AGW is the product of a gross corruption of scientific method and of serial mendacity. It is now driven, and always was, entirely by vested interests for reasons of self-aggrandisement and financial gain. Decent scientists are increasingly sceptical, not to say downright scathing, and are openly dissenting in tens of thousands, as evidenced by pronouncements of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as signatories to the Oregon Petition 2008.

AGW is a vicious travesty of science and a monstrous fraud on the public. It will do immense damage to the economies of the developed world with no compensating benefits of any kind. The great emerging economies of Russia, India, South East Asia and China will benefit from the West’s adoption of cultist dogma in place of rationality since, quite rightly, they will take absolutely no notice of the West’s self-proclaimed and meretricious environmentalist credentials. In the meantime and in parallel, policies pursued, allegedly to “save the planet”, will condemn the poor and dispossessed indefinitely to squalor, disease and early death, as they are doing already.

Rupert Wyndham.

Who has the audacity and arrogance to say that the global environment is in its ideal state now and should remain so and that man can defy Nature and counteract Nature’s normal cycles.

To dismiss the Sun as an inconsequential factor in influencing global warming and climate change is irresponsible from a scientific perspective.

To classify a gas, CO2, without which life could not exist, as an atmospheric “pollutant” is ludicrous.

Where is the factual proof that links anthropogenic production of CO2 to global warming/climate change? Polar Bears drowning (they have been known to swim 60 miles in open sea)? Melting glaciers (the Franz Joseph and Fox glaciers in New Zealand had receded 1,000 feet in 1974 during the global cooling scare)? One can relate anecdotal yarns about the effects of global warming/climate change, but anecdotes do not link anthropogenic CO2 to global warming/climate change.

The link appears to be artificial and inspired by a political agenda initiated by members of the UN.

The average annual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0385 percent (Mauna Loa Observatory). Fourteen percent of that amount of CO2, or 0.00539 percent of atmospheric CO2 has anthropogenic origin.

All the futuristic doom and gloom is predicated on computer models which are biased toward and greatly amplify the effect of anthropogenic CO2.

A legitimate test for the computer climate models, would be to use the computer models retrogressively to recreate the past history of the Earth’s global warming/climate.change.

I am from Missouri. Show me. In the mean-time, computer models are not reality. Nature is reality.

I submitted my comment, which discussed the omission in the report of any mention of using carbon sinks such as vegetation. Neither AGW proponents nor skeptics could object to reforesting the tropics.

This was discussed in Freeman Dyson’s article here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

Shows you don’t need hundreds of pages to explain the truth, both the science and the politics.

AL GORE IS LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.

From my days in physics lab, I became quite familiar with the Finagle Constant. Things never got so bad that I had to resort to the Bougerre Factor.

Both of these terms are, mathematically, constant variables or variable constants, depending upon your viewpoint.

The Finagle Constant and the Bougerre Factor are complementary. The Finagle Constant changes the Universe to fit the equation and the Bougerre Factor changes the equation to fit the Universe.

The cleverness of global warming/climate change computer models is the combination of the Finagle Constant and the Bougerre Factor into what is called the Diddle Coefficient which, when applied to the computer models, modifies the Universe and the equation in such a manner that they appear to fit without requiring a change in either.

I have violated my promise to remain cogent. Sorry!

Computer models are not reality. Nature is reality.