AGW Deniers: Grand conspiracy or everyone wrong

So 31,000 pranksters make up names and PhD for 9,000 fake people who aren't
scientists? Or just a couple were on the list before they got vetted?

 

None are vetted. Even now.

 

That's not true.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

 

Your link says anything about vetting people who sign the petition. The whole thing is a joke and laughed at by the scientific community

 

Tens of thousand of scientists is the scientific community and they are laughing
at the stupidity of the global warming alarmists.

 

Are any on that petition? Because they haven't been vetted so who knows who they are. LOL

 

Well you go ahead and provide us a list of 30,000 global warming alarmist scientists along with their credentials before you go criticizing my list.

 

You are hilarious. You have yet to provide one. I provided every science agency on the planet. Hilarious

 

Yeah, so? And I provided 30,000 scientists. You've provided none.

 

You did not provide one scientist. No one on that list has been vetted. They could be garbage men. They contacted dozens of names of famous scientists on that list and they said they did not sign it. Hilarious

 

At least get one thing right. AGW is hypothesis not theory.


Diffen › English Language › Grammar › Words
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable."

 

You are getting confused with the IPCC report. Many scientists have been fighting to get their name off that bogus report.

 

You did not provide a single one. Would you like to see the personal signatures of the heads of every major national science academy on earth on a document declaring their support for AGW? I refer you to the NASA AGW consensus page. The actual document is the second reference I believe. This is hilarious.

 

Well you go right ahead. I'll just deny that you have since
you just deny that I provided the names of 30,000 scientists
that do not agree with the global warming conspiracy theory.

But what I find interesting is I really have provided evidence
to support my positions, you haven't given anything but
childish mocking with nothing whatsoever to support your
claims.

And the pathetic thing to me is that this is your thread.

 

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz.

Quote from National Academy of Sciences
"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."

Arthur Robinson clearly states that the purpose of the petition was to gather signatures from people who agree with him. He achieved this purpose; he got signatures.

He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion.

 

Who says it's an unfair reflection of relevant scientific opinion and who made them
the ultimate arbiters of what can be considered a fair reflection of relevant scientific
opinion?

 

The 'relevant scientific opinion' means the scientific opinion they agree with, not the scientific opinion they do not agree with.

 

Who is the "they"? Science isn't decided by popular vote.

Science is decided by empirical evidence.

 

They being the political left that have taken a political position on climate change instead of a scientific position failing to recognize the numerous failed predictions and rejection of all skeptical viewpoints in favor of a cultural consensus.

 

The scientific evidence and consensus for AGW is so overwhelming that deniers are lumped in with the Elvis is alive/Bigfoot/aliens built the pyramids crowd. Lol

 

You are a denier.

 

Thanks again for showing how little you actually know about what is going on or science.

 

Say hi to Bigfoot for me. Lol

 

Sorry, don't know any of your relatives.

 

Right! And you have none to support your reality-denying delusions. All you've got are denier cult myths, lies and pseudo-science cooked up by the propagandists working on the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

The climate scientists, on the other hand, have mountains of "empirical evidence" and the Laws of Physics supporting their conclusions about the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes and disruptions.