Besoeker

Yes.
.
But that is just plain wrong.
If they, the 17,000, signed the OISM petition, they were declaring no such thing.

Poptech

Currently over 19,000 have signed but that is exactly what it is saying since the petition clearly states:

"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."

The current man-made global warming theory is that man-made CO2 is causing the Earth's climate to be "disrupted" and will cause future "catastrophy", thus the theory is a lie and they spell out it has no scientific backing. The wording I used is sound and accurate in the context of the petition, it is just more to the point.

Besoeker

Quite so. Now read it again - carefully this time.
a) No convincing evidence ≠ no evidence
b) is causing or will, ... cause catastrophic heating ≠ does not cause heating

In neither case is the petition claiming that AGW is a lie.
The 19k "scientists" did NOT sign up to a petition claiming that global warming is a lie.

Poptech

If they do not believe man-made CO2 will disrupt the Earth's Climate then how do they believe in AGW?

mkpdavies

What I want to know is why are all those fish floating around dead in your barrel Poptech? They have bullet holes in them too!

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Besoeker

Maybe because they accept AGW but don't think it will be disruptive?

Poptech

So AGW has nothing to do with disrupting the Earth's Climate? Make up your mind.

BonnieDundee

How witty.

Then we just go to the Royal society and realise Poptech doesn't know what he is talking about. A few dubious links and petitions with people like bloody economists doesn't mean much.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Poptech

Keep spinning it. Please show me a scientific survey of the Royal Society's members and their position on AGW. The President of these bodies hold political positions. For instance former U.S President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol:

Bill Clinton 'Signed' Kyoto in 1998 (CNN)

Did that mean that the U.S. Congress agreed with this position? Nope:

US Senate Rejects Kyoto 95-0 (Byrd-Hagel Resolution, 1997)

Show me the evidence, you haven't because it doesn't exist to support your position.

The links and petitions I provided are full of Skeptical Scientists, including Atmospheirc Scientists, Climatologists, Meteorologists and Geologists. Yes I also included Social Scientists and labeled them as such since they would be the ones who's opinion matters on what should actually be done given the information. You can keep pretending it doesn't mean much but so far all you have presented is a statement from 13 Scientists. Hardly "consensus".

Besoeker

I said no such thing.
Might I suggested that you read what I actually posted rather than try to guess what I meant?