Of the 2600 (not 99%) of scientists listed as sources for the GW mantra it has been said that 65% were political scientists (politicians). Not only is it easy to find scientists that use good proven science to dispute the theory of the GW mantra but most of them even study weather. Go figure.
Go to
http://www.petitionproject.org/Here is what the petition states.
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
To date 31,072 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,021 with PhDs.
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.
The qualifications of the signers of the petition can be found on the website link I provided above.
Now I SUPPOSE you could say that these 30,000 scientists are probably wrong...
And I GUESS you could write off nearly 10,000 phd's signing the petition as just a bunch of crazies who don't know what they are talking about..
But then then again if you do, you are probably so brainwashed that things like logic, reason, or scientific data would be wasted on you and no amount of fact will sway your opinion in the matter. Those unfortunate brainwashed souls should probably quit reading this post now.
BUT if you DO decide to look a bit deeper into the facts, the people at Petition Project have a fantastic "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research" that can be found
HEREWhy did they do this petition you ask? What is its purpose?
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
But... but... Lute... the UN did it's own research on the matter...
The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
(for some "interesting reading" on this U.N. study go to
THIS link and read "The UN IPCC's Artful Bias Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers" by David E. Wojick, Ph.D.)
If ANYBODY tries to tell you that "most" scientists believe in man made global warming (yes I'm looking at YOU Anaxogoras) simply refer them to the link(s) I provided. The fact of the matter is quite the opposite.
(and before what's his name jumps me about not quoting a source (snicker... 'cause you know I only copy/paste things and don't post sources) the peer-reviewed research has 132 sources cited at the end of the article.)
