Okay, I found the article. It does mention that there IS a consensus among those actually working in the field (most often exemplified by the group of scientists working under the auspices of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — that agrees manmade greenhouse gas emissions are or will wreak havoc on the climate.)

But of the 31,000 that signed the petition, not one mention as to how many actually are climatologists or are actually working in the field.

So the petition is not a refutation (as claimed in the title) of any science, but an opinion poll of those who already agree with the position the petition is trying to claim.

And since those wh...

Okay, I found the article. It does mention that there IS a consensus among those actually working in the field (most often exemplified by the group of scientists working under the auspices of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — that agrees manmade greenhouse gas emissions are or will wreak havoc on the climate.)

But of the 31,000 that signed the petition, not one mention as to how many actually are climatologists or are actually working in the field.

So the petition is not a refutation (as claimed in the title) of any science, but an opinion poll of those who already agree with the position the petition is trying to claim.

And since those who disagree with the claim would not be allowed to sign, it's clearly nothing more than a propaganda piece designed to fool people.

Now why would any TRUTH need propaganda to fool people?

Now why would any TRUTH need propaganda to fool people?

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 peti...

Now why would any TRUTH need propaganda to fool people?

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.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

Yes, that's the figure I'm looking for! How many is many?

There's a long list of credentials, but no mention of how many in the relevant field? Isn't that a bit suspicious?

Why wouldn't they go into the relevant field and poll everyone they can (without regard to their stance beforehand) and present their findings wherever the chips may fall?

(Wouldn't that would be an honest approach?)

That way they could say (depending on the findings) something like: "10% of climato...

Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

Yes, that's the figure I'm looking for! How many is many?

There's a long list of credentials, but no mention of how many in the relevant field? Isn't that a bit suspicious?

Why wouldn't they go into the relevant field and poll everyone they can (without regard to their stance beforehand) and present their findings wherever the chips may fall?

(Wouldn't that would be an honest approach?)

That way they could say (depending on the findings) something like: "10% of climatologists disagree with global warming" or something like that. And they could substantiate it. But they took a dishonest approach.

Why?

@merrie

For the purpose of what?

For the purpose of verifying the credentials of the experts that assert that global warming is "man-made"

Oh. I was already of the understanding that the poll takers in the "honest" poll already knew that, otherwise there's no point in asking them.

In other words; take a poll of meteorologist / climatologists working in that profession. These are the people who would know more than anyone else. It's their profession. There's no point in asking anyone else.

So we only ask those whom we already know to be educated in that field to start with. That's why we're asking "them." So we "start out" asking only those who are qualified in the f...

@merrie

For the purpose of what?

For the purpose of verifying the credentials of the experts that assert that global warming is "man-made"

Oh. I was already of the understanding that the poll takers in the "honest" poll already knew that, otherwise there's no point in asking them.

In other words; take a poll of meteorologist / climatologists working in that profession. These are the people who would know more than anyone else. It's their profession. There's no point in asking anyone else.

So we only ask those whom we already know to be educated in that field to start with. That's why we're asking "them." So we "start out" asking only those who are qualified in the first place.

And then of those, report how many are yes vs. no about global warming.

The inclusion of MD's & DVM's is totally logical in my opinion, after all, they're researching the effect of global warming on different species, ie: Polar Bears

You're certainly right, in that a DVM could have some insight on the effects of GW on a species. But that's not part of the question. We're not asking about those effects on a species, we're asking if Man is a cause of global warming. A Vet is no more qualified to answer that than a dentist.

Who are the experts that claim that the "AGW science is settled"

I don't know. I didn't know that it was.

But why isn't there a poll of the people who are actually qualified to answer the question? Where is that poll?

PS:

I'm also waiting for someone to explain why it's a political issue. And why is climate change a Marxist doctrine? How does that work?

AL, you're either being disingenuous or you're completely clueless, but
in any case, I'm not willing to engage in this circular conversation.

I inquired how many of those scientists were climatologists and got no response.
You can go the the library and research, but as far as I'm concerned.
You claim that you didn't know that Gore stated that the AGW science is
settled.
Unbelievable!
----

Whoa! I never mentioned Al Gore! You've got me pegged for someone else.

But just for the record, unless I'm mistaken, Al Gore is neither climatologist nor meteorologist. He therefore has zero professional authority to make such a claim.

I'm sorry. Al Gore is irrelevant. What matters is what ...

AL, you're either being disingenuous or you're completely clueless, but
in any case, I'm not willing to engage in this circular conversation.

I inquired how many of those scientists were climatologists and got no response.
You can go the the library and research, but as far as I'm concerned.
You claim that you didn't know that Gore stated that the AGW science is
settled.
Unbelievable!
----

Whoa! I never mentioned Al Gore! You've got me pegged for someone else.

But just for the record, unless I'm mistaken, Al Gore is neither climatologist nor meteorologist. He therefore has zero professional authority to make such a claim.

I'm sorry. Al Gore is irrelevant. What matters is what the scientists in that field say! They are the ones whose assessments matter!

But I think (think!) I see where you get the circular conversation from. Chill for a second. That quote ("I inquired how many of those scientists were climatologists and got no response.") was pertaining to another clip... not this one!

It was for this clip (31,000 scientists Reject human-caused GW), by Antara; not yours. That was on 5-20-08 and as I write this there is still no response to the question "How many are climatologists?"

So I appreciate YOUR response, but my original comment about not getting a response was not applying to you. My apologies if that was originally confusing.

What you supplied, though, were the credentials of those NOT in the field, which prompted my question again.

Because, the opinions of those NOT in the field hold no more value than that of Al Gore, since neither are professionals in that field.

But you're right; I could try to find it at the library since the article won't come clean with it.

PS: And if you can't explain it, at least show me a link between GW and Marxism.