How does presenting the AGW argument from a bunch of non eminent domain plebs who are NOT eminently qualified help at all?.
Why did research into the buffoonery of “What happens when you present obviously incomplete AGW research” achieve maximum penetration of the e-mails and other research in the quest for the truth?.
That’s right, because it was buffoonery and it was obviously so, also protected by buffoons, fortunately.
Did it help, why yes it did thank you very much, made me feel much better.
Do a LOT of the general public (people like me) regard the AGW proponents and defenders as a bunch of slippery shysters? why YES, i think, we do!.

How very interesting to note also, that the bunch of people who are quoted in the first part of the list as being AGW defenders, are also proponents of Geo-Engineering.
Is it coincidental that the group of peoples research and pet projects, that have most to gain, from the dumping of massive amounts of toxic particulate matter into the upper atmosphere, are also the most ardent defenders of AGW.
I hope that those good men and women in the scientific community bring their experience and talent to bear on the REAL issues facing humanity from this fraud.

I just know you are going to say “I was asking about how he judged what was Scientifically relevant and what is not”.
And my reply is intended for a myopic, pedantic individual who obviously has cognitive issues, and likes to play dumb with semantics.
I like to be a straight as i can, it’s so much better for everyone.

Two researchers at the University of Illinois conducted an on-line survey. First the researcher eliminated all the scientists that were likely to think that other factors might be an issue..gone were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.

That left 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. Only those associated with an academic or governmental institution were included. About 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

Only about 3100 of the 10,257 responded. In the end, the researchers narrowed the answers to two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

They further paired the respondents down to include only those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field, by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists. In the end, they counted the responses of only 77 participants..that’s right, 77! 75 of those 77 answered yes to both questions. Putting aside the problems of the questions themselves (Who doesn’t think the earth is warmer now then in pre-1800 times..we were coming out of a little ice-age, for God’s sake). And what is “a significant contributing factor” anyway? 15%? 25%? Who knows?

In the end, 75 scientists of unknown qualifications answered yes to the above questions. Sure sounds less impressive than “97% of scientists agree…”

Whittenberger’s point is simple. OISM petition is not a survey. You may agree or not with the petition, but it’s definitely not a survey and conclusions cannot be made as if it was. However, there seem to be some “skeptics” that cannot deal with the simple fact that it’s not a survey. Skeptic, you say?

Translate that to the situation of the man in the street, who may have had no more than a secondary education. Most politicians will have non-scientific backgrounds, too – and they are the ones who have to make the hard decisions. They have woefully inadequate knowledge in the sciences involved.

One poster above mentioned Teller: but merely being expert in nuclear physics would not of itself be a qualification for making judgements about, say, oceanography or the validity of a particular modelling methodology.

Lists of names with opposing viewpoints in such a complex and potentially world-changing argument, as the article says, is almost completely meaningless even without the question of the names’ veracity.

Therefore, discussion of his methods is appropriate, and arguments for and against various global warming hypotheses are irrelevant.

Arthur Robinson clearly states that the purpose of the petition was to gather signatures from people who agree with him. He achieved this purpose; he got signatures.

As Whittenberger states, “He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion.”

Most of these comments go far off topic, with the commentors taking the opportunity to promote their beliefs regarding global warming and attack those who disagree with them. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to read an article that was followed by comments that are actually on point?

My problem with the human caused global warming group is that they are violating the principals of science. Their famous claim is that the “debate is over” on anthropogenic global warming. When was there ever a debate? I don’t remember one.

Science always allows dissenting views (without attacks on ones character I might add); and continually challenges current theories. The anthropogenic global warming camp has dismissed scientists who question their claims. Where is the truly skeptical group testing their theories? I honestly am an agnostic which means I do not subscribe to either view. I simply do not see enough convincing evidence for either position – it is interesting that a magazine that claims to be “skeptical” has already taken sides on this issue.

“If Robinson had been conducting a real survey rather than a petition drive, he would not have allowed three different ways for persons to participate in his project.”

I am flabbergasted. The OISM Petition is, in fact, a petition, not a survey. How is that not crystal clear? It is labeled the “OISM Petition,” and Whittenberger continually refers to it throughout the article as a petition.

Yet based on a single comment in an outside interview about surveying science professionals, Whittenberger makes that comment his central strawman to attack, and proceeds to knock it down with irrelevant examples of what he personally believes should have been done differently.

Petitions are routinely collected in various ways; there are no set rules. People collect petitions on street corners and county fairs. These petitions were circulated and collected by “The OISM Petition Project.”

But Whittenberger demonizes the authors anyway for collecting the petitions – which were signed by educated professionals who knew exactly what they were signing. Unless, of course, anyone preposterously believes that people like Dr. Edward Teller and Prof. Freeman Dyson did not understand what they were signing.

Whittenberger also states that there are “20 overlapping propositions embedded in the four sentences of the petition.”

I would like to see each of those putative twenty different propositions identified. (See comment #12 above for the actual language of the petition – which Whittenberger neglected to include in his polemic). Can anyone count twenty (20) different “propositions” in that straightforward petition language?

Wittenberger’s illogical and disingenuous screed is filled with strawman arguments, appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, red herring arguments, and other rhetorical tricks that should be rejected by readers of a publication calling itself “Skeptic.”

It is not a skeptical article at all, but rather, it is a heavily biased, devious outburst of factually incorrect propaganda – exactly what a true skeptic must disavow.

Let me rephrase. If the sources we use to determine the truth about climate change are scientifically flawed in research and conduct, how is the public supposed to reach an educated conclusion about its validity?

I applaud Whittenberger for his insistence on rigorous standards in studies, surveys, petitions, or whatever the authors choose to call them.