"If it were 31,000 scientists working in the climate science field, with
a publishing history in reputable journals then that press release
would be worth something."

And yet, the main figurehead responsible for bringing this entire scam to the forefront is a man without a background in the climate science field(or any science field, for that matter), not to mention that similar lists of global warming alarmists have been found to include folks who aren't scientists at all(landscapers and massage therapists to name a few). Go figure.

It's very telling that a background in climate science is only necessary if you are against this hoax.

I'll be submitting the bookish rebuttal to Giles in lieu of PopTech. Well, time to take things apart...

"OISM lost whatever credibility they had with the debacle of the first 'Petition Project'"

Oh, the fun I can have with this statement. Do you even understand what you implied here? Probably not, or you wouldn't have said it. Allow me to fix that. Extracting the logic flow of your statement yields this: "An intellectually dishonest offense equal to or greater than putting forth unverified or partially incorrect information or not checking one's sources permanently invalidates all material compiled or produced by the offender from that time on." Are you starting to catch on? By your own premise, you must disregard all material presented by Al Gore, the IPCC, and the vast majority of media outlets. Of course, you could just admit that you were wrong in endorsing a ridiculously extended version of the Fallacist's Fallacy.

"So media ignoring it would be entirely appropriate."

You believe it appropriate for the media, the group responsible for informing the public, to refuse to show information they may disagree with purely on the basis that previous information from the same source was flawed? Congratulations on the hypocrisy. See the above and below if you don't understand.

"[The media is] learning that balance isn't a 50/50 presentation of opposing
POV's. But a fair presentation based on the quality of the information
being presented."

Again, even disregarding the demonstrated inability to form proper sentences, do you understand what you are saying? Your statement amounts to, "Balance is not equally providing both sides of an argument." Be sure to go tell all the debate teams nationwide that their timekeeping efforts have been pointless all along. Your sentence fragment is even more absurd: "Balance is presenting the quality information." Yeah, that'd be great except for one thing you seem to forget: Who decides what information is "quality"? The media? Well, they're already doing that. It's called bias. Host: "How about giving both sides equal time to present whatever information they think is important?" Manager: "No, that wouldn't be balanced. I've already decided the side I like is right, so their material is "quality" and the opposition's material isn't. Now, you go show only the "quality" material. That's balance."

"If it were 31,000 scientists working in the climate science field, with
a publishing history in reputable journals then that press release
would be worth something."

So, people can't have any understanding of a subject without being contributing members to the establishment view? "If you reject AGW, you can't be part of the establishment, and if you aren't part of the establishment, your views, no matter how scientifically supported, are worthless." That's what you would say were you to have a fit of honesty. It's a circular system with the sole purpose of preventing skeptics from being able to challenge the establishment view. The fact that you are trying to use that circular system to disregard the opinions of 31,000 professionals does not reflect well on your intellectual honesty.

"For a skeptic to have to claim it is an important event without even
seeing the names implies a certain amount of credulousness rather than
a needed level of critical thinking."

Funny, here I was thinking almost the same thing, except mine goes like this: "For a believer to claim it is a non-event without even
seeing the names implies a certain amount of fanaticism rather than
any critical thinking." Yeah, I'm just making fun of you at this point. I'll try to get a bit more serious.

"the first sentence with the substitution of conservative works well also; more so when viewed through this lens: ' Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition' ."

So you automatically jump to dismiss 31,000 potential skeptics of AGW without any information on them, then claim that conservatives are less apt to listen to opposing viewpoints. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, especially if your lens is cracked. Here's a question for you: How much of that mountain of text have you actually read? I'm going to guess you missed the part where it incorrectly defines conservatives based heavily on decades-old material, an article from Amsterdam (Muller's), and an avowed socialist (Norberto Bobbio), so I included it below:

{

Dictionary definitions of conservatism stress “the disposition and tendency to preserve what is established; opposition to change” (Neilson, 1958, p. 568) and “the disposition in politics to maintain the existing order” (Morris, 1976, p. 312). Traditionalism and hostility to social innovation were central to Mannheim’s (1927/1986) sociological analysis of conservatism. Rossiter (1968), too, defined situational conservatism in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences as “an attitude of opposition to disruptive change in the social, economic, legal, religious, political, or cultural order” (p. 291).3 He added, “The distinguishing mark of this conservatism, as indeed it is of any brand of conservatism, is the fear of change [italics added], which becomes transformed in the political arena into the fear of radicalism” (p. 291). Consistent with this notion, Conover and Feldman (1981) found that the primary basis for self-definitions of liberals and conservatives has to do with acceptance of, versus resistance to, change (see also Huntington, 1957). This dimension of conservatism is captured especially well by Wilson and Patterson’s (1968) C-Scale and by Altemeyer’s (1996, 1998) RWA Scale. A second core issue concerns preferences for inequality. As Giddens (1998), following Bobbio (1996), wrote, “One major criterion continually reappears in distinguishing left from right: attitudes toward equality [italics added]. The left favours greater equality, while the right sees society as inevitably hierarchical” (p. 40). This characterization is consistent with many historical and political definitions of conservative and right-wing ideology (Muller, 2001), and it is also reflected in several scales used to measure conservatism (Knight, 1999).

}

Using something like this to attempt to define conservatives in today's world is pointless at best, and more probably dishonest. If those identifying themselves as conservatives (possibly a term having outlived its proper use in the US) truly held "the disposition in politics to maintain the existing order", we would be going along with the establishment view of AGW, supporting the current obese size of government, opposing any reduction in spending, etc. If conservatives were truly defined by "the fear of change", they would not be found as business owners, scientists, inventors, or soldiers ("War is a complex and chaotic human endeavor." Clausewitz; and "[in war] uncertainty, unpredictability, and unreliability are always present" [AFDD 1, p. 6]). If it is true that "The left favours greater equality [than the right]", then the left should be noticeably more active than the right in promoting self-sufficiency in minority groups and removing affirmative action quotas to produce a truly "equal opportunity" environment. Whether you can admit it or not, none of these are the case. Your "study" is nothing more than a mountain of pseudoscience and biased quotes dedicated to supporting the negative stereotypes of modern conservatism.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

"Robinson notes that there were only '..about 500 meteorologists and climate scientists..' in the original petition."

500 hundred is not something to sneeze at and you keep complaining about the need for actual degrees and/or experience in the field yet you dismiss those 500 knowledgeable and experienced people out of hand. Why is that? Could it be that you're BIASED against anyone who disagrees with YOUR assessments?

Well it does mean alarmists might need to come up with an actual argument rather than to just repeat "consensus" as an answer to everything. Especially considering the people responsible for the alarmist claim of "consensus" had to know full well they had no such thing.

Note that Ed Lorenz's work led to the conclusion that weather couldn't be predicted beyond two or three weeks, not climate.  Big difference.  A good realclimate post (your favorite website, I'm sure) explains how Lorenz's work is relevant to climate.  I've included an excerpt below for your enjoyment/education. 

---------------------------------

But how can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic? The trick lies in the statistics. In those same models that demonstrate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it turns out that the long term means and other moments are stable. This is equivalent to the 'butterfly' pattern seen in the figure above being statistically independent of how you started the calculation. The lobes and their relative position don't change if you run the model long enough. Climate change then is equivalent seeing how the structure changes, while not being too concerned about the specific trajectory you are on.

Another way of saying it is that for the climate problem, the weather (or the individual trajectory) is the noise. If you are trying to find the common signal that is a signature of a particular forcing then averaging over a number of simulations with different weather works rather well. (There is a long standing quote in science - "one person's noise is another person's signal" which is certainly apropos here. Climate modellers don't average over ensemble members because they think that weather isn't important, they do it because it gives robust estimates of the signal they are usually looking for.)

--------------------------------------

So, do you still believe Lorenz's work was meaningless? Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

I do listen to them when they point to the thousands of studies done by real climate scientists.

I fully associate myself with this comment.

In fact, the hunger and food riots have already started as a result of global warming alarmism - corn diverted to make fuel in a gov't subsidized process has been driving up the cost of several food grains.

AND, global warming alarmists have asked for another ten years to be proven right!  Stunning.

First of all Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology is a real scientist whether you want to accept it or not.

An alarmist meteorologist...

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology

A alarmist physicist...

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics

A alarmist geologist...

Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology

But NO climatologists. Interesting Patrick Michaels is more qualified by your standards.

There are thousands and thousands of climatologists who disagree? Really? Can you show me who they are?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Now I understand. If it wasn't for man, we would be in the midst of another ice age.</sarc

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

If global trends don't even reflect an unnatural increase in global temperatures due to anthropogenic causes, how can that statement be given any credence? That's known as begging the question.

NASA announces discovery of evidence of water on Mars

That is news to me.

"The issue is that we're pushing this climate change (even if it's natural) past a breaking point that will be detrimental to our lives. There's no life on other planets to care if their temperature goes up 100 degrees, but one or two degrees here will really suck."

Can you explain to me where this "breaking point" is and how it is determined. Can you using the scientific method show how 1-2 degrees warmer would "really suck".

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Nice word crafting in the attempt to make any science field somehow integral to climate science.

But unfortunately out of 20+ that I checked, there was only one research paper, plus one other that was working in a field that could be remotely construed to be associated with climate science in any of the permutations listed above. 

"..engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions.."

Yeah, they'd be specialists in climate science.....

Only RealClimate approved?.No, just expertise that is documentable. Right now this list is on a par with the Inhofe 400 and the Heartland 500. Publicity stunts

What?  No answers?  I take it that is a --No--.