What with the sudden rash of references in question and answers to the 30000 petition?

Deniers raise the petition from time to time but when pressed they have nothing to back what they say about it, they try to palm off as an ad hominem attack, any reference to the very poor way it was created and continues to be used. From the web entry that anyone can use to the repeated names and the names that just don't seem to exist. I've seen people here and on other websites actually go to the trouble of looking for details for some of the names.

It's not that hard to do just pick half a dozen names, how about the first 5 under A

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

http://partners.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.a...

2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find a 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.

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

Except for the 'unknown' not one person in a field even distantly related to climate science.

It's a common denier tactic, very similar to Expeller's constant quoting of "facts" that he can't provide referents for.

Edit. Expeller - you are very consistently modifying what was actually said, then ridiculing your modification. You do not post links because you interpretation would suffer badly if compared directly with the information you are supposedly quoting. In this post I note that your edit removed quite a bit of your more vitriol-laden language, undoubtedly so as to avoid contradiction.

Your edit, for instance, has removed every mention of positive feedbacks, where your interpretation is both scientifically wrong and slanderous. You have never supplied a referent for even one climate scientist or consistent Yahoo answerer who said "the exponential increase runaway warming crap that you all constantly talk about " , which make you a liar out of your own mouth.

You say that temperatures will increase 1.5 degrees without giving an error range, or mentioning that that number is within the error range given by the IPCC data.

How about a referent for just one thing - "The fact that even the 3 degree increase models have been running hot," - which you have used in several versions.

What models are you talking about and how hot have they been running over what time period? Where's the output from those models?

WHo cares about petitions or "consensus". I care about the data. THe data supports man causing some warming, but there is no way to make the data support the exponential increase runaway warming crap that you all constantly talk about. The data simply do not support this assertion. One point to be noted is that in the last 15 years the warming has not even been statistically significant. The rate over this time is less than the rate over the 40 year period. That is right, LESS. Now maybe I went to the wrong math classes, but a graph in which the rate of increase attenuates over time is NOT exponential. In fact, it more closely fits with the logarithmic curve that should be expected knowing that the more CO2 placed into the atmosphere, the less effect each additional molecule is going to have on temps. Physics people. A Logarithmic curve is going to show <1.5 degrees of warming with a doubling, not 3 and certainly not 7. The fact that even the 3 degree increase models have been running hot, certainly should be compelling evidence that the warmers have something wrong.

Virtualguy,

What facts would you like me to provide a reference for? References that contain the information I have placed into my post have been provided many time and most of them can be found in references made by warmers. I am hoping you understand that an exponential curve has an ever increasing rate of change and that a logarthmic ones has a decreasing rate of change and a linear has a constant rate of change, but if you need a reference for that, look at any calculus text book. The IPCC published the 3 degree change as well as Hansen's B model. Dana and other warmers have said 0.17 degrees per decade over the last 40 years. Hansen stated that the last 15 years showed a 0.122 degree per decade increase. Which reference should I provide?

Were you not aware of the data that I have mentioned and you need to see the references or is this simply some lame attempt to disregard the facts that are obviously true. And BTW if the facts that I am saying are not true, then it is the warmers like Hansen that are lying.

I eagerly await your reply.

Virtualguy, I am still waiting...

Probably the most famous and one of the smarter people to sign the Oregon Petition is Edward Teller, who is widely called the father of the Hydrogen Bomb.

Unlike some of the signers, Teller was neither stupid nor ignorant. The basic physics behind global warming is simple.

If you read the petition, it says,

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause CATASTROPHIC HEATING of the EARTH's ATMOSPHERE and DISRUPTION of the EARTH's CLIMATE." (EMPHASIS added)

Teller acknowledged the science of global warming. He just figured the damage wouldn't be too bad, and if it were, we could geoengineer our way out by lowering the temperature of the earth. He even did research on potential solutions to compensate for global warming: http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/scatteringEdTell...

I personally think Teller underestimated the long term threat and overestimated his proposed cure. The earth's climate and ecosystems are too complex.

But the point is that the petition has less substance than appears on its face.

That was me. I'm learning there is more to the story. But your comments seem a little misleading.

Yes there are some problems, obviously. But..... well......Um...... I don't think you are being entirely fair in your comment. Think about it a minute.

EDIT: I don't have time now for looking into this issue I'm not finding good info. It really seems a shamefull.

No, I can't really defend that link. The Idea is sound, Read the petition. The guy who started it has some morality issues

and the manner in which it was circulated was unscientific

I think there will have to be a new survey done in a manner consistant with guidlines accepted as appropriate for proper, acurate data gathering. This also is not Proff that AGW is false, only proof that the "debate is over" comment and that "only a small minority" don't believe in AGW are not true at all.

Let me make a few points here:

1. The criticisms you refer to are actually from three sources, the Seattle Times, an op-ed from the Hawaii Reporter and a Scientific American survey. It is a fantastic leap the think that this analysis makes that petition to be "shown as a hoax".

2. For any list of 30,000 names it is expected that there would be several issues including people who get duplicated, people who died, people who have recanted, people who entered the wrong qualifications, etc. In fact, it would be miraculous to have a clean list of that many names.

3. People who do not like that list or what it represents are fully open to sabotage it by making false entries. Both sides play that game and this is an easy target.

I do agree with people that simply referring to that petition is not much of an argument much like referring to a poll of those who agree with AGW is also not much of an argument.

Matthew: Chances are you won't get good info anywhere when it concerns attempts by the denial side to show it isn't happening. If you want to find out yourself study up on the greenhouse effect, look at the data of longwave radiation within the atmosphere and how it is increasing or decreasing at specific points, look at measurements of solar output, and then come to your own conclusion based on study not hearsay.

Petitions and surveys don't really mean anything.

There is enough hard evidence to show that the AGW scam is based on fudged data.

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Summary.h...

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/ther...

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/scientif...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f...

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/why-...