Quote:The blog of a propaganda expert? You should be more skeptical. These are the same people who posted some Heartland E-mails that were obtained by fraud by Dr. Peter Gleick, along with a fake E-mail that he made since the ones he stole didn't put Heartland in a bad light. To restate that, they posted a lie. These bloggers then circled the wagons around the thief Gleick, as did many of the most vocal climastrologers. These are the people you're in bed with.


 

Now let's actually read the criticism. They found about ten people who's name begins with 'A' for whom they couldn't find scientific credentials? That's only ten out of (say) 1000 of the 31,000 who's names begin with 'A.' That leaves (say) 990 of the 'A' names that didn't fit their agenda. Pretty pathetic argument.


 

And their other big argument is that very few of the signers are climate 'scientists.' That goes back to my point that if you only limit the field to the faithful, astrology would be considered a valid science.


 

For DF, how do you know that the vast majority of the scientific community thinks climate change is real? Where is the survey? (and by 'climate change is real,' do you you mean that significant climate change is caused by CO2 and it is a severe problem?) Otherwise, I also agree that climate change is real. The climate is usually changing. It was warmer when the Vikings farmed in Greenland, and much colder in the 17th century. In the last million years the planet has experienced long periods of glaciation between short warm periods, of which this is one.

 

And you're in bed with Exxon Mobile, who clearly has no reasons to lie about anything.  I mean a big corporation like that, surely they're honest angels.  


They just named ten, that doesn't mean that they were the only ones they could find.  Many of the petition signers are veterinarians, and other medical experts who don't work in the field of science at all.  Don't take their word for it though, LOOK INTO IT YOURSELF!  How about that?  


 

Quote: 

In 2001, <i>Scientific American</i> took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

<blockquote>
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.^[25]

</blockquote>
 

And your argument about astrology is absolutely ridiculous.  If you get cancer, are you going to go see an Oncologist?  I mean if you ask just Witch Doctors, they'd be considered a valid medical organization.


Also, the NAS (whom the petition makers seemed to have reason to try to mislead others into thinking the report was from, so I'm guessing their opinion is at least somewhat valid) criticized the lack of climatologists, and suggested that the report was written to mislead people into signing it.  But I'm sure the NAS lacks credibility.

---