[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

WRONG! The term and all papers associated with it have one thing as its main message - Human Caused Global Warming. This is regardless what the petition says.

More FUD out of you, but what can one expect when an individual is so brainwashed?

I don't understand why you spend so much time attacking the individual and the petition site when what you should be attacking is the data presented.

Lost argument is why.

-S

WRONG what they signed was they didn't believe "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere".
I'll tell you what. You give a good enough reason of why he manipulated the hurricane data and why he claims 31,000 people of science signed the petition when both claims are bs and why you think it's okay and I'll give thought to reading more. Do you think thats why he has no peers at his side. Don't say 31,000 agree because all those names are signing on the petition which no one of note signed and their was no way to verify any of the signers as scientists. All groups that did sample names found major problems.

In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

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.

Haven't heard anything from this one have we. I wonder why? I'll give you one guess.

In October 2007 a number of individuals reported receiving a petition closely similar to the Oregon Petition. As with the earlier version, it contained a six-paragraph covering note from Frederick Seitz along with a reply card and a supporting article. The text of the reply card is identical to the previous petition. Below the text is a signature line, a set of tick boxes for the signatory to state their academic degree (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) and field, and another tick box stating "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute." This renewed distribution has continued until at least February, 2008.

If the individual is a wonk guess what? His information is a wonk. That is why nobody is supporting him or his data.