The OISM formatted the report to make it look like the National Academy of Sciences published it as a peer reviewed journal article…it wasn't. Scam artists?

They also fail to ensure all the names on the list are scientists. Basically, if you log on to their website you can sign it. Scam artists?

Also, their website links to a website that advocates creationism over hard science. Not scam artists, but there aren't any facts here.

After saying all that it doesn't even matter if global warming is real or not. See my post above.

Believing that human activities can change the weather is like believing that the earth is the center of the universe. The earth is not the center of the universe.

More than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto the Global Warming Petition Project. The petition states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.pr-inside.com/the-petition-contains-th…

It is CRIMINAL to force us to swallow the global warming hoax, which will increase unemployment, poverty and dependence.

What if we started a new industry in the U.S. that created $500 billion worth of jobs and kept that many here? That would be decent.

On top of funding our enemies and losing jobs, our dependence on foreign countries for energy essentially puts our economy hostage to their whims (1970's oil embargo).

Now if you take into account that global warming is possible (I would say it is true, but for the sake of this argument we will say it is a 50-50 chance) and you take into account that it's entirely possible we are running out of oil, even at a slow pace, then any intelligent person has a difficult time arguing against alternative energy. It's time to put aside the crap ideology and get this problem fixed.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.h…

So do step around the train wreck and blame it all on GW Bush then create a new fake problem, all to save your skin.

Global Warming? from a few warm years in the 90s? When its been cooling for the last decade! Carbon tax when we are in a recession. Same dead end sound bite crap that sunk our ship in the first place. But in the end I guess Im the scarry guy for peeking behind the curtain. For the record Im no fan of GW Bush, but I know a fall guy when I see one. What did you expect the GOP to do when the twin towers went down? form a daisy chain?

IPCC Funding
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-princ…

IPCC Publishing Procedures
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-princ…

I assume you all like to read "scientific" literature. I had trouble finding peer-reviewed articles that supported consensus from scientists about the claims in this article (besides those funded by Shell and Chevron, which does not define consensus, but minority opinion). The data used in this scientifically pathetic stream of burble (for example, that CO2 is lagging temperature change), was all gathered from the IPCC reports. This is because the IPCC assessment reports are a summary of all available peer-reviewed data (not necessarily funded by the IPCC). Saying that the IPCC science is worthless is like saying that 99% of the scientists on earth have not been using sound methods.

Temperature change and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are correlated, not causal. It is a feedback loop that we admittedly do not fully understand, but know is linked. Up to 650,000 years of ice core data was used to draw this correlation. Another fact that we know from this ice core data: humans have changed the CO2 the atmosphere more in the last 200 years than any known fluctuation within a 10,000 year time span. Correlate that.

Hence, the difference between the vast majority of scientists on this earth and right wing conservatives that deny climate change: we absorb the information and make educated decisions rather than clinging to our bad choices in the face of concerning new data.

P.S. I love the archaic misogynist…Leigh. You really lend credence to your intelligence and your cause, my friend.

Rather I will resort to philosophy. Many if not most scientist in the world not only feel that the evidence supporting Anthropologically induce global warming is overwhelming, but that this warming will produce a mass extinction of fauna and flora. Note: we are a member of the Fauna population.

So here is the philosophical argument for the deniers:

What if you are wrong? Is it possible that you do not understand the science well enough to place yourself in the position of being a climate change expert. What if you are wrong, but you convince enough people to believe you are right that you lead to the lack of needed policy changes? What if because those policy changes don't occur the Earth's climate enters one of those worst case scenarios that some real scientist really honestly are scared may become reality?

I am a very strong believer in freedom of speech and would never suggest that a denier does not have the right to express his or her view points. But what if you are wrong? Think about it. Just let that possibility play in your head for a while.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2008/11/14/antar...

All those left wing fringe lunatics are a small minority, people just don’t voice their opinion as they are tired of the rhetoric – one minute Ozone layer, next global cooling, then warming, then cooling, now cows fart too much, now sheep burp too much, now we have to become vegans, now people’s farts are taxed.

The science is clear, the horse has bolted.
Now just watch the mass media change the wording from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ ha ha haha … climate always is changing.