What am I to assume now, that the other signers also have the same lack of integrity?

I agree with the statement, yet I never thought to sign on to it as I don’t consider my name an asset to the petition.

If I ever disagreed with a petition statement such as this, I would never think to fraudulently sign on to it in an effort to undermine its credibility.

Whose credibility has been undermined by your actions?

Damn the bad ………whatever.

That’s what AGW doomsayers came up with to cover their butts of events don’t match their forecasts.

Change is a known characteristic of planetary climate and I am not aware of anyone who suggests that climate is static, but apparently AGW doomsayers think it should be.

I think it erroneous to assume that the impact is a net negative.

And I think it unwise to proclaim any certainty on the net contribution of AG emissions to climate trends.

On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, “Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as ‘fact,’ I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.”

He further states “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world… Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.”

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Spencer is a right wing religious loony bird nut job! ON top of that his satellite data is also showing the warming trend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

The little hypocrite keeps telling us that unless we cut back on CO2 emissions, Mother Gaia will surely perish.

If one reads closely; what Yasafi has said is that we must cut our CO2 emissions. He’s a Priest in the Church of AGW, and his carbon-spewing vacations to the far reaches of the globe are just too important for him to cut back on CO2.

Not nearly the strongest and the effect diminishes as the CO2 content increases.

And the surface record is questionable.

Took you 2 seconds eh? That’s what I would expect from a believer.

I assume that you claim you know more than I do because I am disagreeing with you. I don’t know what you know and you don’t know what I know.

I have found that there are credible, credentialed and authoritative scientists who question the AGW doomsaying. Including John Cristy and Dr. Spencer.

Good enough for me to remain skeptical of the hyperbolic claims about looming disaster.

The positive feedback assumption in the models is not proven or the negative feedbacks not adequately accounted for.

There’s no doubt that CO2 is a strong driver of climate, there has been no recent cooling that debunks the climate models, the surface record is accurate as depicted by the IPCC report and supported by loads of ancillary findings. You’ve simply parroted all the well warn debunked climate denier talking points you’ve been spoon fed from isolating your self to agreeable sources.

That website you linked to “The Resilient Earth” took about 2 seconds to figure out how full of crap its to authors were seeing how they completely mis-represented the results of recently published article in Science Magazine.

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/#more-1265

What’s interesting is that you would choose, for your argument from authority, a petition project that has random names, mostly the membership of the Competitive Enterprise Institue as oppsed to the Consensus statements from Professional Organizations like the AGU, NSA, AAAS and AMS.

http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/pdf/Climate_Letter.pdf

Please note…. my name George Balella MD is on the petiton project.. I signed it years ago just to show there was no screening to see who signed. It’s not a list of any authorites… it’s like I said mostly a membership list.

If climate change where shown to be a hoax, or a fraud or to be way off the mark it would be a massive condemnation of our scientific institutions…. a failure far more grand at than the failure of our economic institutions to predict the current economy from the obvious trends that showed it to be heading off a cliff.

Since then, I’ve kept abreast of developments in all the fields of science. Science is my second interest after political economy.

I’ve made whatever career I’ve had in electronics and taught myself how to write software for the electronic devices I’ve been creating.

So when you try to compare me to creationists, it just doesn’t fly.