The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks

[luckytxn 2,264]

Fred Singer: “The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks.”

When it comes to covering the issue of climate change, I have an open mind. So when skeptic scientists visit Houston, I make an effort to hear them speak. In the past I have covered Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, to name a couple of the most prominent visitors.

Last night I availed myself of the opportunity to hear physicist Fred Singer speak at the University of Houston. Singer, 88, trained as an atmospheric physicist and is an outspoken critic of the prevailing views held by climate change researchers.

The guest of UH scientist Larry Bell, who has established himself as one of Houston’s most prominent climate change skeptics as the author of the book Climate of Corruption, Singer spoke to about five or six dozen like-minded people. Among those in the audience was Apollo 7 astronaut Walt Cunningham.

Singer started out his talk by dismissing assertions that he was funded by tobacco or big oil interests, although he did acknowledge once receiving an “unsolicited” $10,000 check from Exxon.

That said, he began to disparage climate scientists, saying, “Climate science is not what we call real science. It’s not physics or chemistry.”

Frankly, I would disagree. Trying to disentangle the complicated threads of our planet’s atmosphere to understand how it works, and predict how it might change in response to human and solar activity, is indeed a very robust and challenging science. I would agree that we have a ways to go to reach a comprehensive understanding on this subject.

Singer then proceeded to display NASA’s familiar plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, from 1880 to present:

Of this graphic Singer said the warming from 1910 to 1940 is real, but that the warming from the late 1970s to the present day “is fake.” He’s not asserting the data is fiddled with, he said, but he doesn’t believe the warming trend is real. “The whole conclusions of the IPCC is based upon this reported warming,” he said.

Why does Singer not believe the trend is real? As evidence he supplied the satellite record (1979 to present) for temperature in Earth’s lower atmosphere, a graphic that looked something like this:

Singer said, “This is causing great concern among the alarmists. It means that all of the efforts to control CO2 are useless, in addition to being very, very expensive.”

Singer continued his presentation by noting the lack of significant warming since 1998 while surface temperatures have continued to rise (see graphic), and said Greenland’s ice core data show no significant warming since 1940.

He then went into a fairly long recitation of recent political battles involving the Environmental Protection Agency and its efforts to regulate carbon dioxide, as well as making several attacks, including:

Of President Obama’s scientific advisor, John Holdren, he said, “Obama has acquired a scientific advisory who is an absolute nut when it comes to global warming.”

Of the climate change scientists whose e-mails were stolen in the Climategate controversy, he said the e-mails show, “The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks.”

Singer concluded his remarks by noting that carbon dioxide, in and of itself, is not harmful, and that adding it to the atmosphere is good for the planet because it feeds plants. In fact, planets are CO2-starved, adding:

“Carbon dioxide is harmless. Carbon dioxide is in our lungs. It doesn’t hurt a thing. All of these efforts are counterproductive, expensive and hurt our economy and kill jobs.”

The bottom line for me is that Singer covered no new ground in his talk. The arguments he’s making are not published in peer-review journals, which is the proper place for such scientific disputes to take place if they’re to move the scientific community. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong, but it does mean his views are far outside those of atmospheric scientists who study these questions for a living.

Nevertheless his views are right in the sweet spot for many Americans who are leery or skeptical or outright disgusted by the notion that carbon dioxide humans are putting into the atmosphere can be changing the planet’s thermostat. And for that reason Singer’s talk on global warming got a warm reception in Houston.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fred Singer

Leaked documents reveal that [Fred] Singer is paid $5,000 a month by the conservative Heartland Institute, with an additional $1,000/month "in expense reimbursement," and $10,000 for travel in 2012.

It's all coming together, isn't it?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Leaked documents reveal that [Fred] Singer is paid $5,000 a month by the conservative Heartland Institute, with an additional $1,000/month "in expense reimbursement," and $10,000 for travel in 2012.

It's all coming together, isn't it?

What is?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

What is?

The giant sucking sound that is this thread!

[luckytxn 2,264]

Reality does suck to people that have been suckered by the IPCC scam.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Reality does suck to people that have been suckered by the IPCC scam.

Or is the reality simply that people get paid to propagate that the IPCC is a scam and others fall for that propaganda?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Or is the reality simply that people get paid to propagate that the IPCC is a scam and others fall for that propaganda?

scientists get government grants/funds to find certain results, especially when those results are political ammunition/can make politicians and lobbyists money. So you don't think that many scientists aren't corrupt to keep their cashflow for research going? You don't think for an instant that research can be skewed one way or another?

Let's be realistic here. If you're going to call one person a crook for accepting money from a source looking for an answer, you're being a hypocrite in not chastising the othe group the same way.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

scientists get government grants/funds to find certain results, especially when those results are political ammunition/can make politicians and lobbyists money. So you don't think that many scientists aren't corrupt to keep their cashflow for research going? You don't think for an instant that research can be skewed one way or another?

Let's be realistic here. If you're going to call one person a crook for accepting money from a source looking for an answer, you're being a hypocrite in not chastising the othe group the same way.

Wanna be realisitc? Try and think about how big a conspiracy it would take to maintain that overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. Now I know you like your conspiracy theories more than anything but realistically that ain't happening. The funding patters for the dissenting scientists are pretty well documented and the funding typically comes from the very same sources as the greenhouse gases. Coincidence? I think not.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wanna be realisitc? Try and think about how big a conspiracy it would take to maintain that overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. Now I know you like your conspiracy theories more than anything but realistically that ain't happening. The funding patters for the dissenting scientists are pretty well documented and the funding typically comes from the very same sources as the greenhouse gases. Coincidence? I think not.

I see, so you readily admit that source matters and the "alleged" concensus (i/e there truly isn't one in the way you're talking about) doesn't matter where their funding comes from though? Come on now.

Most people won't deny that climate changes or that some areas are getting warmer while others are getting cooler, etc.. Patterns happen/change, that's a given.

The thing you have to remember is that everyone has a motive. Everyone has an idea locked in their head. VERY few people, no matter how dedicated they are to their scientific field, will do anything to prove their own theory. Then of course there's the bandwagon scientists who are just looking for any way to get funded and will jump on to make sure they get their 'fair share' of money as well.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of legitimate people out there studying climate, atmosphere, etc. but at the end of the day the actual ones who care enough about the actual results and getting it right are few and far between.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see, so you readily admit that source matters and the "alleged" concensus (i/e there truly isn't one in the way you're talking about) doesn't matter where their funding comes from though? Come on now.

First things first: The scientific consensus on global warming does indeed exist. Not a single scientific body of national or international relevance is dissenting. Not one. That's consensus. There was a team of sceptical scientists that set out to challenge that scientific consensus - only to come up with findings actually supporting it.

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

[luckytxn 2,264]

First things first: The scientific consensus on global warming does indeed exist. Not a single scientific body of national or international relevance is dissenting. Not one. That's consensus. There was a team of sceptical scientists that set out to challenge that scientific consensus - only to come up with findings actually supporting it.

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

There is no consensus except among the scientists that are gorging at the funds being thrown their way to fall in line of what the politicians want. Actually most scientists are against GW. Of course just like the Socialists the minority views are correct and all else is wrong.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Actually most scientists are against GW.

Now that statement needs a link or bullshit is called.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming

By Karin McQuillan

Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.

Everyone "knows" that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists -- precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee -- who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998 . We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter. We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.

What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama's recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, "The Whole Country Can Be Rich.")

President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. "What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."

Obama calls for the debate to end. He cites hurricanes as proof: "dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real -- it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster."

Happily, our president is wrong. The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900. The world's top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming affects storms. There is no such thing as a man-made hurricane. Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are entirely natural. Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized media. We hear only one side.

More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation . They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998 .

It takes a lot of courage . Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut , their jobs terminated, their careers stunted , and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world .

Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified , marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials." Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."

As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, "One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective."

In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver :

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period.

In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, but not in America.

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

Dr. Joanne Simpson , one of the world's top weather scientists , expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak "frankly" on global warming and announce that "as a scientist I remain skeptical ." She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather -- we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.

Recently we've had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."

But within a week, Muller's lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global "temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly."

This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting," Prof Curry said. "Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO2." In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics' arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation - as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller's false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming "highly unethical ." Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer : the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning , with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud .

This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don't understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.

Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its "endangerment" finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic :

Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the 'absurd result' that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [greenhouse gas] regime.

Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media reports. Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he received an award while at NOAA for "accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries." Here is what he has to say on global warming:

It is time for a reality check . Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios ... I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming...No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.

That is why we must hear from all the best scientists, not only those who say fossil fuel use is dangerous. It is very important that we honestly discuss whether this theory is true and, if so, what reasonable steps we can afford to take to mitigate warming. If the theory is not based on solid science, we are free to develop our fossil fuel wealth responsibly and swiftly.

Instead, federal policies are based on global warming fears. Obama has adopted the California model. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state. California now has almost 12% unemployment, ranking 50th in the nation.

The country could be following North Dakota, where oil development has led to a 3.5% unemployment rate, or Texas, which has created 40% of the jobs nationwide since the 2009 economic crash thanks to its robust energy sector. These are good jobs. An entry-level job on an oil rig pays $70,000 a year. A roughneck with a high school diploma earns $100,000 a year in Wyoming's Jonah Fields. Brazil's new offshore oil discoveries are predicted to create 2 million jobs there. We have almost three times more oil than Brazil.

When we treat oil and gas companies like pariahs, we threaten America's economic viability. For global warming alarmists who believe that man-made CO2 threatens life on earth, no cost is too high to fight it. They avert their eyes from the human suffering of people without jobs, with diminished life savings, limited future prospects, and looming national bankruptcy.

This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen , "[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."

Warming advocates persistently argue that we cannot afford to pause for a reality check; we must not ignore the possibility that global warming theory might be true. Limiting fossil fuels and promoting green energy are presented as a benign, a "why not be on the safe side," commonsense approach.

There is a lot of emotion and little common sense in this argument. If a diagnosis is based on a shaky and partly fraudulent theory, ignores much more convincing evidence , and has terrible negative side effects, you don't perform major surgery. We do not have to run around like Chicken Little on the off-chance that the sky may be falling.

There has been a high economic cost to limiting our oil and gas wealth, with much human anguish because of government-imposed economic contraction. Responsible government policy requires honest media coverage, unfettered scientific inquiry, and robust political debate. Our country cannot afford the costs of foolish energy policy based on politicized science and fear.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1mZn8XPDU

[luckytxn 2,264]

31,000 SCIENTISTS REJECT 'GLOBAL WARMING' AGENDA

by BOB UNRUH

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.

“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,” the petition states. “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.”

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an “escalation of the claims of ‘consensus,’ release of the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Mr. Al Gore, and related events,” according to officials with the project.

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine . He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore’s office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about “global warming” have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by “global warming.”

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, “The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.”

“This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful,” he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on “global warming,” officials said.

“The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries,” Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.”

He said the “global warming agreement,” written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

“Yet,” he said, “the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

“The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged,” he continued. “During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

“These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity,” he said. “Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

“The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy,” he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

“In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom,” he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.’s campaign to “vilify hydrocarbons,” officials told WND.

“The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it,” the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

“In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists,” the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others “have claimed that the ‘science is settled’ – that an overwhelming ‘consensus’ of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.”

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project’s website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

[Dakine10 5,452]

[

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1mZn8XPDU

OK thats 1000 scientists who think GW is a natural phenomenon. So technically not against GW, but what the hell, you can have it. There are roughly 6 million scientists in the world. That's only 2,999,001 more to to go.