32,000 Deniers, The Number of Scientists Outraged by the Kyoto Protocol's Corruption of Science

Attacking the source, Mars? Brilliant argument. Never seen it before.

You should get out more.

Bodhi1- see huang's post just below- ID proponents engage in the same nonsense, pretending to rally an "overwhelming" amount of "scientists" to their cause, when in fact many cited scientists don't work in the same field or even know what they have been linked to.

I love how you guys are attacking the credibility and personal integrity of these scientists before you've even seen the first name.

Who are the real zealots here?

I love how you guys are attacking the credibility and personal integrity of these scientists before you've even seen the first name.

You don't know what you're talking about. We took names off the list and checked them out. They are NOT scientists, they're just professional people with a degree.

I love how you guys are attacking the credibility and personal integrity of these scientists before you've even seen the first name.

Prove their credibility. If they were so "prestigious" then a name or two would have been mentioned. Their credibility is not assumed, it must be shown. How do you trust this article without proof? That's called "blind faith" and it's not science.

ID AGW proponents engage in the same nonsense, pretending to rally an "overwhelming" amount of "scientists" to their cause, when in fact many cited scientists don't work in the same field or even know what they have been linked to.

There. Fixed that for you.

They are NOT scientists, they're just professional people with a degree.

To be fair, they coud very well be scientists, just not scientists explicitly knowledgeable about climate science.

There. Fixed that for you.

Prove it. Until you do, you're talking out of your ass.

Prove it.

Are you saying that all the scientists that are listed by the IPCC as supporters of AGW are climatologists and knew, in advance, that they would be on the list? If so, perhaps you're the one who should be appearing at birthday parties and Shriner conventions as a rectal ventriloquist.

Cute.

Can't prove it, then?

Thanks.

Actually, I was wondering what you would accept as proof. That's assuming you're willing to be convinced, or course.

Actually, I was wondering what you would accept as proof. That's assuming you're willing to be convinced, or course.

An IPCC member not explicitly educated or experienced in climatology or oceanography.

Care to provide more than vapid hyperbole?

Abigail Bristow, professor of Transport Studies at Newcastle University

Hmmm, her field of expertise is in emissions reductions mechanisms for transportation.

It does seem she's more of the "how do we reduce impact" kind of person, rather than the "what is our impact" kind of person.

I'll look into this a bit more. Thanks.

I have no doubt that there are scientists on both sides with valid credentials. I also imagine that both sides are lenient in who they list as being "on their side", so as to have an impressive number of "experts".

LOL I am still randomly searchign and still cant find a single name.. I challenge all of you to do the same.. just do a couple and post them here.. and I doubly challenge ajs to find a single name on the list that was trained in climate science(no weathermen).. no fair searching out the famous ones... don't even know if grey and lindzen are there anyways.

LOL this is really getting way tooooo easy.

Joules,

I tried W's for wheel, I took the fifth one from the front and back because my first name has 5 letters.

First:

William J. Waddell, MD, professor and chair emeritus of toxicology at the University of Louisville

a scientist, but hardly a climate specialist.

second:

Paul E. Wyszkowski: Mr. Wyszkowski is a graphic artist with a degree in materials engineering. His art seemed uninspired to me but I'm sure that's no comment on his ability as a climatoligist.

um ajs in a college?
whats your point?
ok CLimate science is a huge field.
I guess you could go to uw's atmospheric science department
or perhaps you could get a degree in fluid mechanics.
Geology works somewhat but helps to be a bit more specific and a lot of them tend to have worked for oil and like it or not their claims are suspect.
even some agricultural sciences.
Whats your point?
do you think I should include orthopediatrics in that list?
You know when you computer breaks, it helps to call a tech and not the vet even if you do think of it as your pet.

But I guess you question could be honest as apparently 32,000 people have no idea how to get a degree in climate sciences.

Joules my only point was that you get probably get a "climate science" degree at a school that proliferates the climate orthodoxy and religion, and in the end what does that mean? Not much in my opinion.

So it is your position that the opinion of a "communication scientist" on climate change is worth heeding?

everybody had a right to an opinion, however uninformed and misguided it may be. But representing that opinion as though it had scientific validity is deceitful, lying, mendacious...take you pick. These people aren't weather scientists at all. Most of them are not scientists at all in the sense of being researchers on the edge of discovery.

Well my personal opinion holds the title of bachelors in science in engineering and I hold it quite highly, so why should I question a communication scientist?

Its true that the communication majors are a joke but they still have a right to an opinion don't they?

OK, I'll rephrase:

Is it your position that humanity's response to global warming theory should be in any way shaped by a list of people that appear to be nothing more than "communication scientists" and others of similar relevance to climate science?

I would just really like you to explicitly state exactly what you think is the significance of the opinions of the people on this list.

Well considering the fact that there is a proposed consensus in the scientific community then I guess any one in a scientific field should be allowed to comment on the subject. A lot of Climatologists (an infant science) like to criticize the fact that economists get in on the mix, yet economics has been around a lot longer and has shall we say less mythology involved in it. They are just as good if not better than climatologists in computer models and projections, so when they see flaws in that area of the science they have every right to speak up especially when they know the economic consequences behind it better. And please do not use the whole money makes the world go round BS because apparently everybody is concerned with the economy including those who are voting for Liberal Environmental Candidates.

This is a telling graphic of the status of how the world feels about this
participation in kyoto
lol even iran and ven and saudia arabia signed and ratified it, cant say they dotn stand a lot to lose from emmission reduction..even if they don't have to reduce themselves, we buy emiting products from them and we would have to buy less.
Notice the only red country on the planet.

Are you Wheel a "weather scientist" if not are you're arguments automatically refuted because you are not a "weather scientist"?

No, and not only am I not claiming to be, but no one else is using my name and claiming that I am. Read the seed. You can't possibly take this seriously.

Joules my only point was that you get probably get a "climate science" degree at a school that proliferates the climate orthodoxy and religion, and in the end what does that mean? Not much in my opinion.

Cute: "Everyone who disagrees with me is brainwashed."
That sounds like the paranoid ravings of psychosis, not to mention it's nothing more than wild speculation based on nothing but your own wishful conspiracy fantasies.

A lot of Climatologists (an infant science) like to criticize the fact that economists get in on the mix, yet economics has been around a lot longer and has shall we say less mythology involved in it. They are just as good if not better than climatologists in computer models and projections, so when they see flaws in that area of the science they have every right to speak up especially when they know the economic consequences behind it better.

I have to disagree with that, and I hold a bachelor's degree in economics. Economists can understand complex mathematical models, but climate science is more than just models. Just as a climate scientist well-versed in complex analytical simulation should not be thusly taken as an authority on the long-term machinations of the US economy, economists familiar with bare computer modeling should not be taken as credible authorities on climate change.

Unless, of course, they help your own cause. ;-)

Economists can understand complex mathematical models, but climate science is more than just models.

And that is why they can give scientific criticism or praise in that area of climate science.

Just as a climate scientist well-versed in complex analytical simulation should not be thusly taken as an authority on the long-term machinations of the US economy,

Yet they want to be able to institute regulations that will have drastic economic affects.

Of course I am pleased to see you leave the door open for anyone to be able to comment, discuss, criticize and praise any science and economic issues.

Unless, of course, they help your own cause. ;-)

Economists are closer to priests than scientists. Enormous "physical fallacies" are imposed on their theories. They are useful though. Like hammers.

Yet they want to be able to institute regulations that will have drastic economic affects.

Economists are not expected to be political scientists or ecologists, yet many economists push economic policies that have large-scale political and ecological effects.

Same expectations go for climatologists, it's a two way street.

Same expectations go for climatologists, it's a two way street.

show me a climate sciencetist proposing economic policies.
They simply say we have to reduce our green house gases.. the economic policies to get this done are still in the rhelm of economics. they are simply saying what the science says.
and I have zip problems with economists talking the economy, inbcluding to what may happen is we reduce our green house gases.
key is they need to stay on their side of the fence and not says stupid stuff like kyota is based on false assumptions about the climate.
How about saying kyota is based on false assumptions about economies..t hen I would listen to what an economist had to say on the subject.,

It is a two way street but your side seems to forget what side of the road it is on.

Any climate scientist that would propose we be under Kyoto or any other environmental policy, or for that matter no environmental policy, for both will have economic implications. What we need to do is examine how effective the policy would or would not be and also determine the affect it would have on the economy and whether or not it is worth the sacrifice. You see you are forgetting that they both are intertwined and so any comment from either side of the fence should be warranted. Just as poor economic policy can be bad for the environment, poor environmental policy can be bad for the economy. There has to be a balance. You can't peg this issue to a point where only one group can comment and decide on and that they are the only ones that should be listened to, nothing works that way, and this is too big of an issue with political, environmental, and economic aspects for one side to have a monopoly on the opinion of what should be done.

\LOLOLOL Not visible enough for the list?? did you see the people I randomly found?
did you read ont eh petitions on pages.. what it actually takes to be on the list?

But we as scientists, know what we see - computer models that one day predict more hurricanes, the next day predict less, and Lord knows, can't predict the weather next week.

Ok I chalenge you on yoru science degree cause a statemnet like that straight off the skeptic pages proves you know nothing of the theory of chaos.

as for checking the sun daily, obviosuly you havent checked in a couple weeks..a s right now there are 3 old cycle spots, last week had a new cycle spot. And the sunspot link has been throughly debunked. You also know that while we were setting record temps.. we also had a very mild solar maxium and we continued to set recs all though the solar minimum. For the past 20 years solar output has declined, not risen.
the maunder minimum was due to volcanoes and not a lack fo sunspots.. it was the sulphates int eh air that prevented the usual isotopes from the ice in antartica..

One of the coldest years?? what almanac are you getting your data from? It wasn't even close to one of the coldest years.

as for puny effect, almost doubling the amount of co2 in the air is hardly puny. It's like doubling the water in the ocean and saying that has a puny effect as well.

doing nothing will put far greater strain on the poor which I deny that doing something will nessarily hurt them, in actuallity, it will create many jobs.

PS a quick check of the petition site.. shows that anyone can sign up.. but only those with a BS or better in any science will be accepted.
DO you have at the very least a BS in science?
then you are not to invisible to be on the list.

Joules,

That's a pretty broad range. I don't think it would be fair to call everyone who has a degree a scientist. A biology degree is nice, but it hardly qualifies the holder to have an opinion on global warming that should warrant any higher regard than anyone elses.

High school teachers have degrees, they are not necessarily scientists because of it. Same goes for college professors.
I was right to doubt the validity of this list, it has none.

I question our puny impact on it and the proposal to impose onerous measures on the poor of this country to satisfy some smug feeling of self-righteousness.

Just out of curiosity what would those onerous measures on the poor be? As for my opinion, I'm more worried in the health aspects of what we dump into the air, ground and water. If all this was addressed as much as global warming, I believe, global warming would be taken care of.

well one such measure that noone is discussing but would be an easy start. Huge taxes on gas and coal. this would slow down consumption but also raise the price of everythign that needs to be transported.. like food and could very well hurt the poor.
There are also some very hard and stupid ideas, like mirrors in space or mimicing volcanic dust in the atmosphere.. this is stupid because, food production levels, depends on sunlight.. reducing the sunlight isnt addressing the problem.

things we can do and not kill the poor.. use alternative energies where ever we can(except ethanol), we can paint our roads and roofs white.. we can start building things with energy effciency being more improtant than athestics. WE could enourage the public to car pool more, use smaller vehicles. We could tax the us of large personal vehicles(not commercial), we could give tax breaks on low carbon foot print vehicles. WE could get businesses to encourage more workign at home and give tax breaks to those that do. We can sequester co2, we can start a project like when we went to the moon or developed the nuclear bomb and put real effort behind solvign the problems

we don't have to kill the poor or the markets to solve the problem.

we don't have to kill the poor or the markets to solve the problem.

No we don't. I would like to amend one point you made about painting roofs white. We should be creating "green roofs" which is to say - planting grass and foliage on roofs which lowers heating and cooling costs and uses at least some CO2.

We should be creating "green roofs" which is to say - planting grass and foliage on roofs which lowers heating and cooling costs and uses at least some CO2.

Good point. People have already been doing that here and there for decades, and personally, I think it looks better than a stark white roof.

Just as long as I don't have to mow it. I'm dangerous enough on the ground. ;-)

There are countless other scientists, myself included, who are not "visible" enough to be included in such a petition.

What kind of scientists would that be? Culinary Arts? They have veterinarians and graphic artists on the list. It doesn't seem to be all that discriminating as to who they let on it. Just because a person calls themself a scientist doesn't mean they have a valid scientific opinion on a topic outside their speciality.

that's cause you don't get your sceince from science mags.
the only thing that is true is some sciencetists predict global warming will pause due to el nino.
&0's read the time mag article for your self wher3e they complainw e don't have enough bouys ice cores, statallites, and basic data, and that their wasn't a concensus.. but w/e

fact is we have the data.
as for money the ipcc didn't pay a dime for reports supporting AGW.
the ICCC (you guys) paid 10k each for reports denyign agw.
the IPCC did not make up lists saying these people belvie in global warming.
your side has made up 4 so far.
and had the luntz memo leak where you stated you would try to confuse the issue.
and had the exxon money trail.

yeah businesses are just falling over each other to throw money at global warmig sciecntists.
LOL
serious dude, pick up a copy fo nature mag, science, sciencetific american, and don't get your science from rush, fox or even here on the vine

not sure if the opinion tag fits here either..
perhaps dangerous satire
politcal propaghanda
at anyrate.. the title is a total lie.

morally despicable texts

Wow.

I nominate ajs for an RAV!

Benno if these are your thoughts on my seeds that I know I am hitting the truth, THANKS!

What reason! What rhetoric! I think I'm going to cry!!1

Get this: We're supposed to have a system rewarding credibility here. You are constantly spamming the site with advocacy of "let the rich live in ignorant bliss while the poor and the world slowly dies" type propaganda based entirely on lies. If that's not abusing the system of vineacity, nothing is. I did see some others beat you on the morally despicable account though.

Because I call you out on your choice of climate change news I have to defend Robert Mugabe?

Looking forward to your endorsement!

Get this: We're supposed to have a system rewarding credibility here.

Like it or not, it is a system that rewards popularity. It has nothing to do with credibility.

...constantly spamming... propaganda... beat you on the morally despicable account though.

We are, however, supposed to have a system where Viners respect one another. Your comments put you more in the CoH violation category than the RAV one. Why don't you report this to the Newsvine staff? I would like to see if they are in agreement with you about this seed.

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation.

I keep forgetting Newsvine is really just a nicely designed popularity contest on Google skewing.

Also. Jeremy Snavely, the owner of the petition site, is not a climate scientists. He is not even a scientist in any kind of weather related subject.

Jeremy Snavely is an dermatolog. Dermatology is a branch of medicine dealing with the skin and its appendages (hair, sweat glands, etc).

The skin doctor spin doctor. ;-)

ajs you bring up a great debate. I'm just calling as I see it from the front row of wind energy.

What's worse is there regulation to achieve this does not even work, for the environment anyway.

The EU's EEA had this to say back in 2005 regarding Global Warming in a press release.

The EU is well on its way to achieve its Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases on the basis of the policies, measures and third-country projects already implemented or planned.

Check it out here

But of course the actual report says this.

Latest projections for 2010 show that existing domestic policies and measures by Member States to reduce emissions are not sufficient for the EU-15 to reach its Kyoto target. Even with planned additional domestic policies and measures, the target will not be reached. The target will only be attained when Kyoto mechanisms (3) are taken into account.

Check it out here

So apparently the Global Warming Scientists and the well informed government regulators not only lie but the science behind Kyoto does not even help and more is required.

Rake in the dough?

Come on ajs , that's what its about? Money?

Nothing wrong with money, just as long as its clean. Ask Exxon about that!

remember me, the little guy who wanted nothing to do with it and was forced at gun point to oblige, who's freedoms where declared immoral, who liberty was announced unworldly.

ajs there's no forgetting your crusade for common sense. I think the power of America's consumerism has grown so strong that Americans will find every way to capitalize on even the most socialistic programs until those fixed-market standards wither and break.

Nevertheless the corporate benefits to carbon credits are incredible and many financial institutions are just waiting for the moment of approval to cut loose on a new realm of speculation. Beware some of the underlying motivation for "green."

Regulations on industry. Yes, if particular industries are harmful to populations in general, as in you don't have a choice over pollution and climate change.

I'm not about to give a free pass to British Petroleum to mess up the atmosphere for a couple of points on the Big Board. That's just Neanderthal. You want a slow extinction, go ahead, not me, or many others who vote for that matter.

When you grasp how much money is at stake for green innovation via these intangible carbon credits you can call it corruption, momentum, innevitability, or market demand but there is an amazing incentive for corporations to lobby hard to adopt Kyoto if for no other reasons than "free money" through improved "green-ness."

What flagrant bulls---.

You obviously don't know the first thing about emissions trading. Emissions credits are hardly intangible, they're quotas for emissions from the source organization, be it a nation or a corporation. This "free money" you're self-righteously tooting your little clown nose about is hardly free money, as it directly comes with emissions reductions strings attached.

Did you actually read anything about emissions trading, or just decided that it was evil because it combined your pet peeves of evil corporations, capitalism, and AGW?

So apparently the Global Warming Scientists and the well informed government regulators not only lie but the science behind Kyoto does not even help and more is required.

nd how do you justify that using "we're not meeting our targets"?

the little guy who wanted nothing to do with it and was forced at gun point to oblige, who's freedoms where declared immoral, who liberty was announced unworldly.

Which little guy would that be? Private citizens are hardly required to buy cardon credits, and developing nations are all but exempt from Kyoto.

Learn a bit about something before you lambast it, boy.

Its not just money but control, a government that can woo it's people on the misconceptions of climate change.

Ah yes, it's all about a government wanting authoritarian control over its people. That's why emissions trading is all but invisible to common citizens, and a international consortium of many nations signed Kyoto -- you know, because they all wanna be dictatahs.

Jack I'll respond later... I stand to benefit a great deal from carbon credits, ease on the coffee and I think you'll grasp exactly where I stand and what I know.

ease on the coffee and I think you'll grasp exactly where I stand and what I know.

Translation: I'm right... just because.

Again ease up Jack, no translation needed I was busy and trying to respond timely to this:

What flagrant bulls---.

You obviously don't know the first thing about emissions trading. Emissions credits are hardly intangible, they're quotas for emissions from the source organization, be it a nation or a corporation

I'm still not exactly sure how to respond thoughtfully to your attack except to say that "quotas for emissions" is to me quite intangible where purchases acquire stuff that we can usually touch and feel. If you want to beat me up on the process let me know where I steered you wrong.

"quotas for emissions" is to me quite intangible where purchases acquire stuff that we can usually touch and feel.

Your use of "intangible" implied a certain demonization in invoking that rhetoric.

An emissions quota is as tangible as a government bond, a music download, and, to venture outside of purchases, a civil right.

In the modern world, such things are just as tangible as a Chevy Malibu or an alligator.

Wha?

Al Gore money is dirtier than Exxon money? I had no idea that money votes, oh wait, maybe it does. Does it?

Al Gore money is dirtier than Exxon money?

Making money does not make Al any better or worse... the fact is he has found an early way to capitalize on the carbon credit market even before the Kyoto Protocol has been embraced here in the U.S. in such a way that the broader banking system cannot yet trade credits in the same way.

Some call it a socialist program, but much like Al I see it as a capitalistic opportunity and regardless of politics if it makes things cleaner and greener and makes money while improving the world around us... most all will favor it.

You could be, sign up. What is their goal? World domination? Please! Don't try to scare us with that kind of crap.

Mine too my friend. But the real threat to our liberty is economic, not climatological. We can be enslaved economically, the climate can only destroy us.

By the way, is anyone else having a problem with their post and vote button? Mine keeps appearing after each comment even though I've already voted for this seed. It doesn't increase the number of votes when I click it again though, but it does still post the comment. Very strange.

My degree is in engineering, and I am not on the list.

Which leads me to deduce that you want to ride the publicity gravy wagon of "oh, look, f--- AGW" without officially aligning yourself with deniers. Or, you're just lazy.

My only goal is to live free, and for others to have the opportunity to do the same.

I'd love to see you delineate the specific freedoms you're being denied by the AGW supporters.

Go ahead. Name some concrete ones. Otherwise, you're nothing more than a third-grader crying mommy during recess.

Ha ha, Well Jack the see here,

Funny, the only specific criticism in that article is:

Opponents, led by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., say the bill would drive energy costs higher than they are now and crush an already weak economy.

Oh noes! The freedom to have energy prices... skyrocket slowly?

Ha ha, Well ajs I hope you have something just a smidge better than that. If you find something like that, you run the risk of actually supporting your presently hollow claims.

Jack, it easy to see, the issue is not about saving the planet, it is about control.

By that overgeneralized token, it easy to see, criminal law isn't about protecting people, it is about control.

ajs, as long you leave enforcement up to the federal and not state level govt I suspect there would be no problem.

Tell ya what Jack, lets try something.

Something devoid of evidence, eh? Not surprised.

I'll get a law passed by congress to force you to eat and breath 5% less every year starting in 2011 until 2050.

Again with the overgeneralized emotional appeals.

The same can be said of any regulatory legislation, such as nuclear power plant structural guidelines or automobile safety regulations.

Your "control bogeyman" argument is empty bunk.

This is government mandating industry to abide by the governments self proclaimed limits. What is more controlling than that?

And I said:

The same can be said of any regulatory legislation, such as nuclear power plant structural guidelines or automobile safety regulations.

I assume you damn those just as vehemently, right? I mean, f--- airbags! Damn limits on the automobile industry! I shake my fist at airbags!

Your comments are, at best, emotional appeals because they overgeneralize using near-meaninglessly vague "bad" words like "control," providing nothing more substantial than empty fearmongering. At worst, they are simply empty, meaningless rhetorical filler.

They apply to so many things our very economy depends on (and that you take for granted) that your point is not only meaningless, but laughably naive. I doubt you are so obtuse as to think that anarchy is the way to go. I hope I did not misjudge you there.

I am very sad to hear that you Jack with a economics degree can not appreciate these simple concepts.

Don't presume so highly of your own intellect. If you truly had an argument that passed muster, you'd be able to make it without cowering behind the abstract mental masturbation of "OMFG, like, control!!!"

But, you want to talk about economics? As a rather libertarian person, I support antitrust regulation (read: control) for reasons of economic health: monopolies destroy free markets. But no, of course that's another example of "OMFG, control!", am I right?

Wow.

Government by Industry for Industry.