This list contains only about 1300 names (show me the rest it!). no qualifications are stated. Several of these names are just names with nothing under them. The vast majority are names with a university under them but no indication as to what they do there. (Student, Proffessor, Admin, janitor?)


I'll give a few examples:

PROFETA, Timothy H.
Nicholas Institute of Environmental
Policy Solutions.

^^ Not a scientist.

KHESHGI, Haroon
ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering Company

^^ An engineering company.

HUGHES, Dan
Hughes and Associates

^^ oow great

GERHARD, Lee C.
Thomasson Partner Associates

^^ ok..

DANILIN, Mikhail
The Boeing Company

^^ what?!? (i've already seen numerous people from this company on it)

GRAY, Lesley
Reading University

^^ im done.

What was i supposed to be looking at? Im sure if i had time to look into there names like the website i showed had then i would come up with the same conclusions. The vast majority is people who claim to have expertise but are neither scientists or work in research.

,,

__________________
“It is anomalous to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind, but can extract what is in his stomach.”

And the six that no longer agree. It suggests to me that they weren't infact contacted, or didn't give signing it the correct amount of thought. What bizarre reason can you have for assuming they're being terrorised? Do you assume that everytime someone doesn't answer the phone when you call them?

Well, I'll note again that I see this list as basically worthless as its almost impossible to independantly check. Assuming though that they're legit, and have the same failure rate as the other sample, thats maybe 500 more scientists?

Right thats a compelling argument. Its junk or its not, we have no idea how many are legit. Not to mention its old now anyway.

Its palpably incredible that you apply this level of scrutiny(well sceptsicism rather) to the IPCC, when you apply absolutely bubcas to your list. Arguably, the IPCC one is far more reliable, being that they actually give some identification. Also incredible, and this gets me every time, that we are supposed to believe that money is influencing scientists because their governments want them to find AGW is true (???) compared to the huge amount of money doing the rounds from resource companies that have an obvious conflict of interest.

Seems Mannie has addressed that area better than I could, but I will pick up where I wanted to anyway, with an analysis of specific names you offer- so Richard Lindzen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...ing_the_report

"Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[23]

According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute." [23]"

Link to said op piece: http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

And Exxon Secrets: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai.../exxon-secrets

What list are you talking about? doesn't seem to be the one Mannie mentions- you better hope you didn't just stand still.

Vast majority? Look again.
Only have time to address a few of the names you listed. I'll get back to you with the ones I don't address in this post. BTW, Google is useful in getting info on the names with nothing under them.

DANILIN, Mikhail
The Boeing Company

Boeing is involved in satellite measurements, an important part of climate research.

Thomasson Partner Associates and Haroon Kheshgi are actually AGW skeptics. So much for the deniers claims that the IPCC report is biased.

Lesley Gray is a meteorologist at the University of Reading.
More later.

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

After multiple calls id assume there getting tired of every news group, enviromentist and green industry associate hounding them. yes.

Numbers getting bigger isn't it???

This whole thing is old the petitions, the lack of evidence, the terrible bias..

The IPCC is just as corroded. There are other groups besides the 'coal' industry involved and the 'government' The green industry is huge the push for renuable resources and clean cars the news is benefiting alot aswell as every leftard hippy whos wet over the idea of his dream apocalypse finally arriving.

You addressed none of the names i offered.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...g1-annexes.pdf

[Whats with the link? Is DANILIN Mikhail a scientist?

It is biased! look there puting on people who contribute but don't agree!!

Aww well i guess 1 out of them was gonna be real sooner or later..

Looking forward to it.

And weres the rest of my 2100?!?

You want some cheese with that whine? Seriously, you refuse to answer my questions, insist that without any evidence or sources of your own you can cast aside mine and demand I provide more evidence is absurd enough. Then you somehow have mustered the audacity to say things like "I don't deserve to be treated fairly" and that I'm immature in the same post?

The fact of the matter is that you are like all of the blind faithful AGW believers. You want to hold onto your views and attack anyone with ad hominems who disagrees with you, prove they are funded by oil (The truth is I'm raking in millions of dollars to write this post), or do anything but admit that the science doesn't warrant the drastic sorts of actions the enviromentalist crowd insists we make.

Remember the last Great Al Gore Debate? Neither Do I.
(Joke stolen from Climate Skeptic)

True, I had assumed by how long this thread was that the topic had been brought up before. My Bad. However, you guys never just asked that question, you insisted that I hadn't provided readable evidence and was mocking you for not reading anything. If you had just asked "I'm not sure where to look for this cooling period you were talking about, and not sure where I can see what the lines on the graph mean" or something, I would have gladly oblidged. Instead you just complained about my sources, without even going through a smidgen of trouble to analyze them.

If you had looked, it would be clear that the key and an article further explaining the graph were included. You just insisted that nothing usuable was there, you didn't admit that you couldn't find what was there.

I gave you the relevant graph instead of making you look through an article to read up on it. If you wanted to read through the article, the article was linked on the page. Will the complaining ever cease? Of course not, then we would have to talk about the science.

Right now I gotta go, I think I'll try to edit on to this or make a second post later...

Global Warming is a Hoax.

...

__________________
“It is anomalous to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind, but can extract what is in his stomach.”