31,000 Global Warming Deniers?

Because the only criterion for signing the Oregon Petition was for the signers to have at least a bachelor's degree in any field of science whatsoever. Essentially the list is meaningless. See the 'Lists of skeptical scientists' section in the link below for further details.

Here we go again, names picked from the list/petition/whatever it really is.

(1) Earl M. Aagaard

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Aagaard_Earl_296724...

You would think for the first name position, they would at least pick someone who wasn't pushing stupid science like intelligent design.

(2) Randall L. Musselman, PhD, R. Musselman, PhD (same guy?)

His area of expertise log-periodic dipole arrays (antennas)

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/i...

(3) Charles Lee Duncan, PhD

Returns nothing in goggle but links back to the petition?

(4) W. L. Wearly, PhD, William L. Wearly

same old repeated name tricks

http://www.mmsa.net/memaplistall.php3

(5) Max Jellinek,, Ph.D. (a medical doctor)

Asst-Assoc-Professor, 1961-1996

http://surgery.slu.edu/index.phtml?page=hanlonsurg...

There seem to be quite a few M.D.s on this list.

Interesting that names like John Christy and Willie Soon don't seem to be on this list, you would think they would be at the top of the mailing list, if there were one!

Ahhh Crazy con is dreamland a nice place

"The IPCC refuses to release the fabled 2,500 names they like to throw around.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm

Appendix II: Contributors to the IPCC WGII

Fourth Assessment Report pages 17-30 lots of names and most seem to be linked to Universities and research groups and this is just working group II. If as you say they are refusing to release these names it would seem silly to print them at the end of the report like that?

My take, Dana, with all honesty, is which you're actually not extreme adequate of the different scientists on your container and their concept. you may desire to understand that there is not something incorrect with denying a concept that observations do not help (AGW). you're too trusting of the belief and that i now and lower back ask your self why you do not see that temperature immediately isn't something out of the conventional, and that radical wild version in climate is totally organic. i don't think of scientists are stupid, actually, somewhat the choice. i think of quite intelligent everybody is able to bobbing up with stable motives to assist undesirable theories, surprisingly if particular outcomes recommend that the investment of their study and jobs will proceed. the information relatively, relatively, relatively does not help a disaster in any respect. In a prior placed up you made clean which you anticipate ever increasing disaster (nutrition & water shortages, and so on.) i individually think of you may desire to save an open techniques to what John Cristy and others are saying. each and all of the suitable to you.

Ho Hum, not the old 'list' again this has zero credibility and has been debunked many times. I find it quite amazing people who deny global warming call those who think it is happening 'believers' and pick on data errors (and there are some) in GW science, yet are willing to believe this list nonsense.

bob326: I'm sure you'll find a reason, any reason to find these not credible but here they are anyway.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/73/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Cover...

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

I also goggled the names antarcticice posted and he/she seems to be correct, 'Jellinek' is a heart surgeon.

And another I just goggled at random 'Kermit L Like' is a Lt in the USAF

The simple and saddest fact is the source of the petition the Oregon institute of Science & Medicine, it is nothing more than sheet metal warehouse run by 4-5 old guy way past retirement age like Arthur Robinson.

http://www.oism.org/

Someone did a bit of research and discovered only 3% of the signers had degrees in fields relevant to climatology (including meteorology, geology, etc.).

Why don't they exclude other signers? Because if they did so they'd have less than 1000 signers, less than a percent of the number of climatologists, meterologists, etc. in the world. The point of the petition was to create the illusion there is no scientific consensus on AGW to the public, so that's why they had to include anyone and everyone they could find.

If you spent the time to review the "So-called" experts, you know the 2,500 scientist of the IPCC reports, you would find the same fields listed there. They even listed attorneys and secretaries. At least these individuals are willing to put their names on the list. The IPCC refuses to release the fabled 2,500 names they like to throw around.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physicia...

"Also, why are most of the signers not experts in climatology or environmental science?"

Sort of like the Union of Concerned Scientists?

Edit:

growler... said

"Ho Hum, not the old 'list' again this has zero credibility and has been debunked many times."

Really? The entire list debunked? As far as I know, only a few problems were found with the original list, and those have been dealt with. You have any credible sources that "debunk" the list?

The Oregon Petition list to which you're referring is a PR effort, not any attempt to find out the strength of the consensus among climate scientists. It makes bold headlines about how many PhD's signed their list, but they fail to mention that +95% (a generous estimate) of them have little or no experience in the field of climate science.

In contrast, the authors list of the IPCC report lists the names and organizations of each author and contributor. You can easily find the credentials of the scientists there.

Edit:

kanzeiger - It doesn't take a PhD in climate science to google OISM and see that their list of 31,000 names are most definitely NOT climate scientists. Go ahead and try it. I dare you ;-)

you need all science fields, because earth's ecosystem is many & one any human saying he knows everything is wrong.

I love how people here know the truth, and have no credentials, but these 31,000 other people, who are scientists, have no credibility.

and the source being used to discredit them comes from a wiki on the page of a group whose survival depends on the continuation of the man-made global warming theory.

Instead of the ad-hominems, why can't we reason this question out?

I come down squarely on the side of natural planetary warming primarily because our entire solar system is warming.

But if you want to attack the people on various sides of the debate, how about a few jabs at the Council of Rome and Al "I invented the internet" Gore... he never stretches the truth after all.