Yes he still does not get it. Not every scientist believes in AGW.

“those that deny that climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels”.

Check how subtly the word “deny” conveys all the ideological content of the message: “those that deny…” (We have heard the word “negationist” also, somewhere, sometimes).

Also: “climate scientists”. All of them?

Nobody “denies” that SOME (many?) climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by humans burning fuels”. Everybody knows that.

And as today, only a mind hopelessly lost for common sense and truth, can “deny” that SOME (many?) climate scientists agree that global warming IS NOT primarily caused by humans burning fuels”.

Minority? Even if it was only ONE scientist, he has to be proved wrong for what he says, not for being the only one.

Is his head as dense as a rock? Or, is it as empty as a Vacuum?

T-H-E-R-E I-S N-O C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-S!!!

“We are standing with Descartes, Galileo, and Copernicus.”

Yeah, . . . Leroy Descartes, Bart Galileo, Steve Copernicus, Marie Kerry, and Gomer Einstein. You stand with them, then, and I’ll stay over here “in the minority”.

Bozo!

The conclusion that global warming is primarily caused by humans and that it will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 35 scientific societies and academies of science, including ALL of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Even the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.

You and yours are in the minority here. We are standing with Descartes, Galileo, and Copernicus.

Lastly, are you telling me that the petition has now been fully examined by independent objective bodies? If so, pls. provide a link.

However it is not “old news” as the final petition was just released in the last month. All attempts to sabatoge it, debunk it were premature.

The signatures, the participants are there, fully disclosed along with the peer reviewed paper sent with the petition for the responders analysis.

Again, you, like Doug, are very willing to accept that *some* in the science community, and government at all levels, are telling you that the sun revolves around a flat earth, and the story is closed and the science settled.

The price to be paid if the AGW proponents are wrong is extremely high. Considering that the planet has been cooling for the past decade, not warming, and that only recently did JPL get the TES and Aura satellite launched to measure stratosphere data… combined with the willingness of all to accept that we know little of vapor flow thru the layers and their effects, all point to the fact that such extreme action is beyond premature. It’s economic suicide based on only a segment of science and political activists.

You may be ready to be herded down that road. But you’ll be dragging me, kicking, screaming, biting and fighting. And frankly, Mother Nature is proving you all to be a bunch of dupes.

And you were then, as you are now, wrong
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/05/another-global-warming-lie-bites-the-dust/#comment-94941

Besides, if AGW fanatics are still trying to trash that, and other proofs that there is no consensus, then it’s an ongoing story, and hence not “old news.”

This petition was cited repeatedly by different posters in previous threads on global warming.
It has also been analyzed and discussed in detail by others, including me. Respectfully, this is old news.

It was likely the Seattle times (in the rush of course, to try to declare something bogus) confused Michael J. Fox, the actor, with Micheal “R.” Fox, the scientist. He currently writes for the Hawaii reporter, I’ve read a few of his articles and he is decidedly an AGW-skeptic.

Of course, whenever I come across claims such as the above I check them out for myself. I find that unlike some rather lazy journalists, true ’skeptics’ do that, it comes naturally. I find that proponents of co2 emissions causing unstoppable global warming will swallow anything that supports their existing view, completely uncritically.

Among proponents I find the same claims over and over again, as Richard Lindzen put it, “there is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis.” People see these claims, they repeat them and spread them, but they never really look at them critically. And it is this very habit, this sloppy thinking that turns people away from the climate alarmists’ side (among other things).

“The Or. petition has a history of a lack of disclosure, verification, objectivity, and methodology;”

I provided all the links to the petition, including the peer reviewed paper sent out with the petition, Seitz’s cover letter and the list of names grouped either by state or by name. Yonason repeated those links and added a couple of other stories that debunk your “wiki” source.

Lack of disclosure?? Doug, every bit of info is there. Go vet it… it’s as open as can be. Go verify the names, their status. Not one thing stopping you. Nothing being hidden. I’m sure there’s a govt grant available somewhere that will pay you to discredit the list…

I don’t get it about you. Al Gore and the IPCC has told you the sun revolves around our flat earth, and the science is settled. So obviously, no one else with a countering view can have any viability, right?

All most of us are asking is not that you AGW religious freaks change your view, but to recognize there there are credible sources who don’t buy into this AGW one bit, and it’s too damn early to be leaping into solutions that merely cause other problems… from economic to environmental.

Yet an open mind amongst the masses appears to be in short supply. Dang sheeple will drive the world’s economy into the toilet if we don’t watch out… talk about driven by “fear”. Geez.

Using the “consensus” argument, then, is not scientific at all. On the contrary, it is typically totalitarian, closing the debate without having to debate at the same time.

The people that talk about “settled science”, simply don’t want to talk about science. It’s easy to understand: most people with whom you discuss about AGW, just “repeat” things that they have watched in the news; they don’t know a figure; they have never watched a graph. And if they know figures and are really informed, then they will never use the “consensus” argument (this species is really hard to find).

So, the “consensus” argument is quite pathetic, just for lazy people that don’t want to know or don’t want to do their homework or both.

Do we really need to say that there is not such “consensus”? It is useless. Thirty thousand or thirty hundred thousand. They will come up with something, anything, to say that the important ones are the IPCC guys; or they will say that the oil companies are paying, or God knows what.

The way all this AGW debate is happening is suspicious itself. While the climate rationalists try to CONVINCE through arguments and data, the AGW believers try to IMPOSE their faith, using not scientific arguments like “consensus” or demonizing the opponent: “scientists agree, so you have to believe in this”. They don’t want to convince; they try to impose, and that is closer to fanaticism than to science.

Give it a rest Doug.

view signers here…
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

more info here…
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1635/2/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html

Just because people like Doug don’t want it to be true, doesn’t make it false.