Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

Here is one. Have yourself a logical fallacy wet dream complaining about it.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Keep in mind that unless you can provide some hard evidence that fraud is involved, your complaints represent just another logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

A number of critics of the petition questioned the scientific credentials and the authenticity of the names of the signatories.

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:“ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake", he said.[21] ”


In 2001, Scientific American reported:“ Scientific American took a random 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.[22] ”


In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23] ”


To the issue of duplicate names, the Global Warming Petition Project had responded:“ Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.[24]

 

[orogenicman]

"True or False:

The only people who can legitimately scrutinize AGW (without being declared stupid/anti-science) are scientists participating in the peer review process."

Can an evangelical minister with little science or medical education legitimately peer-review a paper on a new brain surgery technique?

 

[orogenicman]

Exactly how did the FAA force the entire population to comply with the general theory of relativity?

They regulate the airline industry, dude. You remember the old adage "What goes up, must come down"?

 

[orogenicman]

Almost as preposterous as the belief that evil oil, coal, and chemical companies are involved in a gigantic conspiracy with scientists from around the world to publish false information on AGW in order to destroy the environment and make a buck.

It's not a conspiracy if everyone knows about it. Do YOU believe it is a secret?

 

[orogenicman]

If one looks at the gaping holes in the record, some sort intervention (probably of a genetic engineering sort) over vast spans of time would seem to be a plausible explanation if you believe that there are more ancient and advanced life forms in the universe than ourselves.

What gaping holes in which record? Why would any intelligent alien life form give a crap what goes on on some podunk planet on the arse end of a spiral arm in an insignificant galaxy? You are really clutching at straws there, PR.

 

[orogenicman]

In case you haven't noticed, with the advent of the carbon tax schemes and word on the wind concerning government mandates with regard to energy use, the oil companies seem to be jumping on the wagon because some very large dollars are out there to be made off the hoax.

So you agree that they are spending huge sums of money in order to deceive the American public and the world at large. Wow, PCL, I think we have another convert!

 

[orogenicman]

At this point, you have yet to show the first piece of observed evidence that CO2 or any other gas is driving the climate. Till you do, you just look silly showing evidence of change. In case you didn't know, evidence of change does not constitute evidence of cause.

You really do have a problem staying on track, don't you?

 

[palerider]

So, this extraterrestrial culture would not have had to bring every species to Earth, but would have genetically engineered them over vast spans of time. Isn't that just evolution, with some intelligent guidance along the way?

No because evolution suggests nature alone. The laws of nature demand more entrophy, not more organization. Plus the sudden appearance of new species with no evidence of transitional species might suggest the outright addition of new species.

Is this my explanation for how we got here? Not necessarily but it seems more plausable than any explanation offered up by evolutionists and certainly requires less of a leap of faith.

 

[palerider]

Oh really? So why do you support crackpot ideas like ID, if you realize that "God did it" doesn't explain anything?

Why do you keep trying to inject God into the conversation?

Do you believe that ID is only about God?

 

[palerider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Once more, wiki is not a credible source with regard to anything climate. If wiki is the best you can come up with, then you have nothing.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

CLIP:
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.


From the petition project itself:

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

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.

6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

7. Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an "*" is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.

 

[palerider]

What gaping holes in which record? Why would any intelligent alien life form give a crap what goes on on some podunk planet on the arse end of a spiral arm in an insignificant galaxy? You are really clutching at straws there, PR.

Why might I give a crap about what goes on in a petri dish? You seem to really lack any sort of imagination.

What gaping holes? Well you might start by giving a rational explanation as to how living entities could develop from non living matter.

 

[palerider]

You really do have a problem staying on track, don't you?

That is the track. Till you can provide some hard, observed evidence that proves that CO2 is driving the climate and that mankind's contributions to the atmospheric CO2 is driving that, you have not made your case. Anything that does't involve that evidence is no more than a diversion on your part.

Your claim is that our 6 billion tons of CO2 is moving the earth towards a catastrophe. You have yet to prove your claim and by now, all these pages later, it is clear that you can't.

 

[GenSeneca]

"True or False:

The only people who can legitimately scrutinize AGW (without being declared stupid/anti-science) are scientists participating in the peer review process."

Can an evangelical minister with little science or medical education legitimately peer-review a paper on a new brain surgery technique?

So only a scientist, from a related field, can legitimately criticize AGW but any drooling idiot is welcome to support AGW... I've seen that fallacious argument in many forms, most commonly used with abortion and the military.

Next...

 

[Gipper]

So only a scientist, from a related field, can legitimately criticize AGW but any drooling idiot is welcome to support AGW... I've seen that fallacious argument in many forms, most commonly used with abortion and the military.

Next...

And libs fall for the same fallacious argument every time. SUCKERS!!!!

I am working on another fallacious argument that results in libs sending me lots of money.

 

[GenSeneca]

Cap and trade would not be a good thing, don't get me wrong, it would be a giant waste of money, but it isn't a worldwide plan to enslave mankind.

No it's not... You're just using appeal to ridicule. Cap and Trade is not the only legislation the AGW crowd would like to see passed, they also seek UN agreements and international treaties.

Who said our actions were "destroying the planet"?

All of your AGW buddies.

Whether you believe in the A in AGW or not, the fact is, the climate of the Earth is changing. We are going to have to adapt.

OMG! The climate isn't static!?! AHHHHHH THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Reason and common sense seems not to be a part of the discussion on either side.

Right... You're the reasonable one... You accept everything the warmers peddle, ridicule anyone who disagrees, but reject all the "solutions" the warmers offer in agreement with those who you just ridiculed for not believing.