By implication you seem to be stating that Algore has refused to make a run for the Presidency because he wants to be Comrade Chairman of the United States?

Well, why not?  After all he invented (all right, he was instrumental in developing) the internet, discovered Love Canal, was the inspiration of Love Story, and so forth. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

vrwc...

A guy can hope, can't he?

Actually, depending on how strong the quake is on the major fault will be the deciding factor. And, there are many smaller faults in and around the san fran area. Scientists are not exactly sure what will happen with them in conjunction with the big one. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

I assume nothing. The AGW's could be right but they're not even close to swaying me at this time. Beyond that, I'm still of the opinion that slightly warmer temperatures, AGW or natural, may be beneficial to humans. Un-do stress is not beneficial.

And by-the-way, I disagree with my fellow poster below, in my opinion you are not a smug little twit. A little gullible maybe, but not a smug little twit.

It's your honest belief the grant money is equally available to scientists regardless of their theses?

Face it, if it ain't feeding the movement, the cashier's drawer is closed.

I know who signed the Oregon Petition.  I received it about ten years ago when it was originally circulated.  Several of my colleagues signed it.  I did not.  I reasoned that although my undergrad training is in physics, and I fully understand the theoretical discussion, my advanced degrees are in engineering.  Another of my colleagues who does have a Phd in an appropriate field and is also a sceptic, did not sign it either, reasoning that it was not her primary field of study.   I would conclude base on my own personal knowlege that the Oregon Petition is actually a short count of the total number of sceptics.  This is something you certainly don't want to hear but is nevertheless, true. 

Now, it is apparent to me just from your chatter that YOU do not have a scientific background.  Therefore, it is unlikely that you are able to correctly judge who amongst the scientidfic community is capable of comprehending the AGW debate.  A Bachelor of Science degree is sufficient if it is in the right field.  Certainly any of  Physics, Earth & Planetary Sciences or Geophysics are sufficient.  According to your team, no one with less than a Phd in Climatology is allowed to speak on the subject.  Then out of the other side of your collective mouths, your team rejects the credentials of Phd level meteorologists, whose degree work is exactly Climatology, which is itself a wholly contained subset of meteorology.

"you get well over a million people, all professional scientists"  You ignore the number of scientists who are members of more than one society and get counted 2, 3, 4 or even more times by that measure.   Just because an organization endorses "global warming" does not mean  that 100% or even a simple majority of its members support the hypothesis.  In fact, it is highly likely that such opinions are the work of a few individuals on the organization's policy committee and do not reflect rank-and-file views. 

A case in point: The AMS "endorses" global warming. Look at the membership of its policy committee, all 8 of them.  6 of them are professional, political policy wonks.  These people do little or no research.  2 of them are graduate students,  people YOU disqualify because they lack an advanced degree.  They actualy DO the research, and you can bet they have near zero input to the policy making.   Its rank-and-file membership, all the weathermen whose credentials you are so fond of denigrating, in general reject this hypothesis: "human induced climate change is both significant and harmful".    Nopw, search the AMS site.  Show me a policy statement where AMS actually endorses the above hypothesis.

Do you suppose that everyone who works for the IPCC is a scientist?  The IPCC reports something like 2,000 - 2,500 different individual contributors to its Assessment and Policymakers Summary documents.  About 600 of these are actual scientists and perhaps a third of these are 'sceptics' to some degree.  This can be gleaned rather quickly from the appendices of the IPCC AR4 available here.

The sceptics are getting press?  Not anywhere near in relation to their numbers.  They outnumber the AGW activists in the scientific community by 5 or 6 to one.  The sceptics ARE however, systematically defeating the AGW alarmist's scientific arguments.  Evidence of this abounds.   One of the most glaring symptoms is the decline in the stature of "Science" once the top scientific journal published in America.  The cloning scandal is not its only faux pas by a wide margin.  They staked their editorial reputation on the AGWers.  Another is the lackluster showing of AGW proponents at this debate.  There is audio of the debate itself.  Listen and learn.