"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.