31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

[Halon451]

Not saying we're (mankind) helping...but everyone always fails to remember earth's natural cycles of warming and cooling...Just as it was tropical during the time of dinosaurs and an ice age a few thousand years ago...

Besides-it's been colder than average this spring in most of the midwest. I say bring on a little warming!

Btw-I'm all for energy efficiency, etc. I just think global warming is over-hyped. Saving finite resources and being eco-friendly is never a bad thing. But the hell-fire and brimstone approach to it is a major turn off.

Absolutely - well said. I have never proposed a blatant disregard for our environment, hell I do what I can to conserve, recycle, minimize waste, power - I work in an industry that is pushing its people to the limits in order to bring power plant emissions into compliance with EPA mandated requirements, but this doom and gloom evangelical nonsense has got to stop. The only thing it is accomplishing is forcing a wedge into society that doesn't belong there, and scaring the uninformed and unaware into thinking that we're all headed for disaster. Jesus, do you guys ever relax and simply accept that human beings by sheer nature of living on this planet will impact it to some degree, that we can't erase ourselves from the landscape, that in order to survive, some things have to be consumed, some things have to be burned, some things have to be cleared away - we're no different from any other species in this regard - it is just that our intellect has allowed for a much larger demonstration of this simple concept.

And it's so god d**med funny how as soon as someone who challenges this widespread propagandist belief system, suddenly everyone's running around like they got their toes stomped on - maybe there's just enough reason and rationale left in some of you that the truth touches a nerve, buried deep down below the smoke and mirror campaign that has become your platform for voicing your side of the f'ed up story.

And not targeting any one particular person here - targeting the mindset in general.

 

[jonnythan]

Saying that human-caused global warming is "not a settled scientific fact" and "debunking global warming" are two very different things.

How much do you think that 31,000 number would decline if you asked them "do you think humans are probably not causing global warming"?

Come on, guys. Use your powers of reason here.

 

[Halon451]

Again global scientific consensus is that man kind and carbon emissions is having an effect outside of normal climate cycles on our environment.

It's not a consensus if 31,000 scientists are in disagreement!!

I don't know about you, but I find that to be a pretty significant departure from the common belief on GW that you speak of. If this were a courtroom scenario, this kind of percentage would not be enough to convict the defendent.

 

[Rickster71]

The article quotes opposing points of view, but that does not mean that the article was unbiased or without a point of view of its own. The title of the article clearly indicates that the article is far from neutral. And by posting it without comment, you appear to endorse the article. Therefore, you cannot be said to be neutral with regard to the present discussion. Do not pretend now to not be pushing one point of view when you clearly have been.

Thank you, The Amazing Kreskin.
It sounds like you didn't read / understand the rest of my post.
That said:
The article got me thinking about what H.L. Mencken once said.
“the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

 

[Rickster71]

I wonder, since it's alleged (not in this thread) that Bush and Cheney are profiting from big oil, and going to 'war for oil'.
Isn't it equally as plausible that Al Gore is profiting from the global warming scare?

 

[jinjuku]

It's not a consensus if 31,000 scientists are in disagreement!!

I don't know about you, but I find that to be a pretty significant departure from the common belief on GW that you speak of. If this were a courtroom scenario, this kind of percentage would not be enough to convict the defendent.

Why don't you go an find this petition that is being spoke of? What is the make up of scientists? What are their fields of study? How are their opinions categorized (are they at all)? How many scientists are there globally? How many of these petition signers belong to accredited institutions? How many have area expertise of the 31,000 in climate change fields?

How come there is no response from you on the NT Times article involving Dr. Frederick Seitz and the National Academy of Science, yet you are so willing to parade around that figure of 31,000? Or is it simply 'convenient'?

AGAIN: DID YOU GO TO WWW.OISM.ORG and check it out for YOURSELF? Speaking of juries, if they went to that website, credibility would be severely dinged.

 

[Halon451]

Isn't it equally as plausible that Al Gore is profiting from the global warming scare?

It's not only plausible, but it's true.

 

[Halon451]

Why don't you go an find this petition that is being spoke of? What is the make up of scientists? What are their fields of study? How are their opinions categorized (are they at all)? How many scientists are there globally? How many of these petition signers belong to accredited institutions? How many have area expertise of the 31,000 in climate change fields?

How come there is no response from you on the NT Times article involving Dr. Frederick Seitz and the National Academy of Science, yet you are so willing to parade around that figure of 31,000? Or is it simply 'convenient'?

AGAIN: DID YOU GO TO WWW.OISM.ORG and check it out for YOURSELF? Speaking of juries, if they went to that website, credibility would be severely dinged.

I'm not sure where you were trying to get at with this, but did you look at the site? And I had no comment on Dr. Seitz, so you're barking up the wrong tree. If you feel a slight tickle on your backside, that's the following being shoved up the rear exit port:

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)

2. Math (686)

I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)

Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)

I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)

2. Aerospace (585)

I) Aerospace Engineering (585)

Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry ( 3,156)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (768)

I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)

I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)

I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)

Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)

2. Medicine (2,343)

General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)

I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)

2. General Science (241)

 

[jinjuku]

I'm not sure where you were trying to get at with this, but did you look at the site? And I had no comment on Dr. Seitz, so you're barking up the wrong tree. If you feel a slight tickle on your backside, that's the following being shoved up the rear exit port:

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)

2. Math (686)

I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)

Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)

I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)

2. Aerospace (585)

I) Aerospace Engineering (585)

Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry ( 3,156)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (768)

I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)

I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)

I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)

Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)

2. Medicine (2,343)

General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)

I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)

2. General Science (241)

Did you know that Dr. Sietz wrote a paper called "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" that was included with the petition (that has been in circulation for 10 years now) has never been peer reviewed?

Quoted:
The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

The real problem that I have is:

No peer review

31,000 scientist aren't a majority

By my count only about 5,000 have area expertise in anything remotely dealing with climate change or the study of. What does an MD or DVM have to do with this?

I have yet to see a recognized standards body or organization endorse this. They aren't out to get anybody. If this 'Petition' is the real deal, you would see something. This Petition is seen in most circles as a Hoax.

Continued in another post...

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:24 PM

By: Philip V. Brennan

For what it's worth, this story is from NEWSMAX.

 

[Tomorrow]

If you want to know what is truly insulting it's the article referenced in the original post. It's a nutto quack job of 'journalism'. You fail to address my two specific replies to that effect. Five minutes doing a bit of research showed us that.

Keep the facts complete? You must not be reading my prior posts.

I'll say it one more time...because of your inflammatory rhetoric, I will not debate this matter with you. Calm down, debate, be of open mind, and we'll have a nice discussion.

 

[jinjuku]

Recognized scientific organizations for consensus on global warming

The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".

While the petition is merely a 'Show of Hands' effort with no peer review, no accredited backing, and a majority of votes with:

Non-area expertise
A majority not having PhD's (most are 4 year degrees only)

The numbers quoted speak for it's self and is quite alarming to say the least that they are depended on by the 'lay person'.

Here are what some recognized agencies have to say:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1_a.html

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

 

[Halon451]

By my count only about 5,000 have area expertise in anything remotely dealing with climate change or the study of. What does an MD or DVM have to do with this?

I have yet to see a recognized standards body or organization endorse this. They aren't out to get anybody. If this 'Petition' is the real deal, you would see something. This Petition is seen in most circles as a Hoax.

Continued in another post...

If you have the time to get out there, physically, and prove this petition one way or another, then be my guest, and more power to you - otherwise all I am reading is further posturing and attempting to defend yourself against a fairly solid response to your previous post.

Let me re-clarify for you, since you have indeed failed to read the post thoroughly...

Quote
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

Quote
Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

The problem with your thinking, and those like you, is that you only pick out the parts that help sustain your side of the argument, rather than attempting to see the big picture. Studies of the climate and environment are not narrow fields, and do involve a healthy number of other studies both geological and biological. I'm no expert, and neither are you - the difference is that I am attempting to see through the political posturing and widespread notion and actually question the material that is presented as fact, when it may simply not be so. It's much more difficult to go against the grain especially when the idea is so noble and grand, that anyone and everyone is led to believe that if you don't fall in line and speak out on issues you know next to nothing about, then you must be a bad person, when in fact you're simply using your brain.

Hey, it's okay - I understand, we all feel a need and desire to feel noble and believe that we are doing something better not only for ourselves, but for those around us. Keep chugging forth mi amigo, if it helps you sleep better at night, those of us with the willpower and desire to seek the actual truth will stay awake and get to the bottom of this for ya.

 

[jinjuku]

If you have the time to get out there, physically, and prove this petition one way or another, then be my guest, and more power to you - otherwise all I am reading is further posturing and attempting to defend yourself against a fairly solid response to your previous post.

Let me re-clarify for you, since you have indeed failed to read the post thoroughly...

Quote
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

Quote
Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

The problem with your thinking, and those like you, is that you only pick out the parts that help sustain your side of the argument, rather than attempting to see the big picture. Studies of the climate and environment are not narrow fields, and do involve a healthy number of other studies both geological and biological. I'm no expert, and neither are you - the difference is that I am attempting to see through the political posturing and widespread notion and actually question the material that is presented as fact, when it may simply not be so. It's much more difficult to go against the grain especially when the idea is so noble and grand, that anyone and everyone is led to believe that if you don't fall in line and speak out on issues you know next to nothing about, then you must be a bad person, when in fact you're simply using your brain.

Hey, it's okay - I understand, we all feel a need and desire to feel noble and believe that we are doing something better not only for ourselves, but for those around us. Keep chugging forth mi amigo, if it helps you sleep better at night, those of us with the willpower and desire to seek the actual truth will stay awake and get to the bottom of this for ya.

I have a masters in CS from OSU. Doesn't qualify me to cast an opinion with weight when it comes to climate change theory and analysis

I read the numbers posted. I went through stats. I can recognize propaganda when I see it.

I TOTALLY believe that 31,072 people with 4 year or better degrees signed a petition. That is the only point that I will be able to concede.

I am simply stunned at your faith in this vs any of the peer reviewed and published works out there vs a show of hands petition. Some people will believe anything.

 

[Rickster71]

For what it's worth, this story is from NEWSMAX.

Not to worry.
I'm sure the open, honest, and fair press in the USA will have the story out shortly.
Unless, of course, Britney Spears gets into another fender bender.

 

[Halon451]

I am simply stunned at your faith in this vs any of the peer reviewed and published works out there vs a show of hands petition. Some people will believe anything.

I have no "faith" in anything without good clear knowledge or factual evidence; the same can be said - and has - and is - about those of you who readily subscribe to the GW alarmist theory, why because Al Gore made a movie? And then turn around and say that there's no way it could be politically charged? Give me a break...

So until the proverbial "smoking gun" is found that links human activity to Global warming - which it has not been found yet, no matter who says what, or what degree they hold, this will remain a debate, and as long as it remains a debate, I will challenge anyone and everyone who hastily jumps on board and screams that we as humans are the cause and we should cease and desist our activities at once; nevermind how such actions would cripple the economy, tumble the infrastructure, oh - nevermind the GW tax acts that will come down the pipe, pulling more money out of our pockets to support an unsubtantiated claim of human impact, send societies pinwheeling in every direction (as you can see here in our own country), and literally tearing away at everything that sustains mankind's forward progression into the future, because we're constantly bogged down in divisive issues and controversy.

And you're stunned??

 

[jinjuku]

Quote
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

AGAIN:

The 'article' that was included with the petition was not peer reviewed which means it was never published or recognized. This is a fact.

What I would rather have a discussion over is empiric data and not some 'petition'. Last I looked science wasn't done with petition, it was done with the scientific method.

The part that I am actually concerned about is that you are clutching at this single petition with such vigor. I have provided link after link after link as to what scientists in the know are thinking.

Again the petition #'s do speak for themselves. Just because you can provide #'s via a show of hands does nothing but saying I can find 31,072 people with some formal background in science that think X.

I just went through the categories and the numbers represented. Pretty weak stuff.

You are asking some of us to be opened minded, we are only asking the same in return.

Now if you want post something more scientific than what amounts to an opinion poll with no real foundation, I am all ears.

 

[jinjuku]

So until the proverbial "smoking gun" is found that links human activity to Global warming - which it has not been found yet, no matter who says what, or what degree they hold, this will remain a debate, and as long as it remains a debate, I will challenge anyone and everyone who hastily jumps on board and screams that we as humans are the cause and we should cease and desist our activities at once; nevermind how such actions would cripple the economy, tumble the infrastructure, oh - nevermind the GW tax acts that will come down the pipe, pulling more money out of our pockets to support an unsubtantiated claim of human impact, send societies pinwheeling in every direction (as you can see here in our own country), and literally tearing away at everything that sustains mankind's forward progression into the future, because we're constantly bogged down in divisive issues and controversy.

And you're stunned??

I agree, there has been no direct link with causation. We still can't prove gravity or evolution for pete's sake. I would tend to err on the side of caution how ever. I don't have a 'sky is falling' approach to all this. I would like to think that being practical about what the data is suggesting is just hedging our bets.

Climate theory IS complex. Most of the best minds that know MOST about this subject still have question, after question, after question. Every organism on this earth contributes to their local environment and the global climate. To assume that our mass consumption isn't going to have some sort of MEASURABLE impact is just asinine. I personally hope the worst scenarios don't play out. I am typically a plan for the worst and hope for the best type.

 

[Pyrrho]

It's not a consensus if 31,000 scientists are in disagreement!!

I don't know about you, but I find that to be a pretty significant departure from the common belief on GW that you speak of. If this were a courtroom scenario, this kind of percentage would not be enough to convict the defendent.

You clearly do not know what the word "consensus" means. Please read it for yourself (it is in this thread above or you can use your favorite dictionary). The only way 31,000 scientists disagreeing could mean that there is no consensus would be if there were less than 62,001 relevant scientists. And, of course, there is, ahem, some question regarding the qualifications of the signatories to the mentioned petition. Having a degree in a field that is somewhat related does not make one an expert on global climatology.

Additionally, signing a petition is fundamentally a mistaken way to show anything about the world's climate. All a petition shows is the opinions of the people signing it, and nothing at all about the purported subject of the petition.

Of course, if the point was that there is not absolutely universal agreement about the world's climate, that, of course, is true, and will very likely always be true. There isn't even universal agreement about the shape of the earth (see post above).

 

[Halon451]

Quote
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

AGAIN:

The 'article' that was included with the petition was not peer reviewed which means it was never published or recognized. This is a fact.

What I would rather have a discussion over is empiric data and not some 'petition'. Last I looked science wasn't done with petition, it was done with the scientific method.

The part that I am actually concerned about is that you are clutching at this single petition with such vigor. I have provided link after link after link as to what scientists in the know are thinking.

Again the petition #'s do speak for themselves. Just because you can provide #'s via a show of hands does nothing but saying I can find 31,072 people with some formal background in science that think X.

I just went through the categories and the numbers represented. Pretty weak stuff.

You are asking some of us to be opened minded, we are only asking the same in return.

Now if you want post something more scientific than what amounts to an opinion poll with no real foundation, I am all ears.

Wow, THANKS for posting the link to what a scientific method is... how very thoughtful of you. And to think, you actually took the time to look this up on the web.

You're missing the point. A petition is by nature, a show of hands. This is a very politically charged event, and also has serious social and economic implications. Thousands of scientists who have labored under what they believe to be false pretenses on issues concerning GW have in the past, historically kept their mouths shut fearing a backlash from such a politically charged issue as this. This petition IS NOT INTENDED TO DISPROVE anything. This represents an uprecedented number of respectable scientists coming forth to voice their own disagreement over the whole alarmist aspect to GW. A petition is NOT part of the scientific process, it's a call for action, or a call for awareness. Get it right. A petition signed by you, myself, or any other audioholic on issues concerning GW would probably just find its way to the nearest waste receptacle, and be quickly forgotten. However, it is truly significant when such a document is signed by those who have the credentials to fully understand what (and what is not) happening with the issue so vehemently debated. In short, they are no longer afraid of holding their tongue, and this is the way they have chosen to announce this. My god...

Here you go (no thanks necessary):

Petition - Definition