"As against that there are over 31,000 scientist who signed a petition to have it noted that there is no science to support the assertion of AGW."

Told ya Qanda - How does one debate with an aliterate, an unlearned dummkopf incapable of understanding basic, complex issues or even the consequences of global CO2 emissions which increased from 22.5 billion tonnes in 1990 to a rapid, 31.5 billion tonnes in 2008?

But I suspose one must indulge an obsessive dolt who threatens society with a fake petition circulated over a decade ago which every reputable climate scientist, every government (of every political persuasion) has ignored or dismissed as quackery.

Yet the dummkopf demands that we accept this hogwash as truth but has yet to provide just one scientific paper from one of the 31,000 'scientists' proving that climate change is not happening, proving that the science to date is mythical or even one paper to substantiate his wild and silly assertions - well except the unmitigated swill from one computer consultant of no fixed address aka J McLean. Hilarious!

Perhaps you should consider responding because I think he craves attention Qanda and besides, I suspect the poor man is about to throw yet another tanty!

Protagoras

I don’t think so, one doesn’t have to “indulge an obsessive dolt” incapable of understanding even basic physics or chemistry, nor debate them. Why? Because, like Leo Lane, Nick Lanelaw or whatever his name is, they just repeat the same old inane mantra time and time again:

“31,000 scientists ... 31,000 scientists ... 31,000 scientists ... 31,000 scientists!”

Despite the fact that the holy grail of grails of the ‘deniers’ has been refuted, repudiated and rejected, also time and time again:

http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/

I have mentioned previously that I was added to that “list”, by a colleague in the US as it turned out – not hard to do:

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

As to the purring lion, he says:

>>There is the pretend science of the disingenuous IPCC, which pretended that there is scientific agreement by scientists that it is “very likely”. As a scientific basis this is meaningless, and the support for it is a mere 5 scientists ... <<

He obviously can’t count more than the fingers on his (other) hand. In greenfyre’s link:

“In the US alone there are an estimated 2,685,000 scientists The OISM sent out their call to a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science and it got broadly passed around the denialosphere … and they managed to get a mere 1.2% of the American scientific community – WOW!

Except, notwithstanding the extreme parochialism of the American Deniers, climate change is actually a global issue. It involves the global scientific community (who knew?), and the Petition has international signatories, so the real baseline for comparison is the global community.

There are an estimated 63 million scientists in the world, so even if the names were real, the Petition would have managed a stunning 0.005% of the scientific community – DOUBLE WOW!

It’s a fair bet that a far larger proportion of the scientific community smoke Gitanes, or collect antique watches, or are certifiably insane … all of which are just as meaningless as the Petition.”

“Greenpeace and WWF have certainly contributed their pseudo scientific campaign material to the IPCC climate science reports and it's been presented to Joe Public as peer reviewed science.” Posted by CO2, Friday, 18 June 2010 2:53:34 PM "Why the oil spill isn't BP's fault"

Qanda - Will it be poster ‘CO2' who has the integrity to retract his erroneous claims?

Crikey - Extracts:

<Watch this space for an embarrassing backdown by The Australian over a front-page story attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Wildlife Fund for an “unsubstantiated” claim that 40% of the Amazon rainforest would be wiped out by global warming.

In fact, the WWF had simply failed to properly footnote the passage, which was later confirmed to be based on a peer-reviewed study by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute. The Amazon claims in the initial WWF report were later picked up by the IPCC.

And: After months of deliberation the story, by Sunday Times journalist Jonathan Leake, was exposed as a sham in a weekend mea culpa published in The Australian’s sister paper and brokered by the UK Press Complaints Commission.

The complaint, lodged by Royal Society scientist Dr Simon Lewis, slammed The Times for publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.

The “scandal”, dubbed “Amazongate”, was repeated and re-reported across the media, including outlets like ABC’s Radio National (The World Today), 2GB’s Alan Jones and The Sydney Morning Herald and even featured in a Crikey wrap.

(Extract of the Sunday Times apology):

“In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute which did relate to the impact of climate change.”

In a blog post titled “Now the IPCC sexed up the Amazonian danger, too”, Andrew Bolt accused the panel of publishing “wild scare-claims, many based on unchecked statements by activist groups.”

No correction on Bolt’s blog as yet.>

But Bolt and Leo Lane are the grave liabilities of the liars' lair.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/23/sunday-times-apologises-over-ipcc-amazongate-what-about-the-rest-of-the-media/

Qanda, did you attend physics lectures?

Were any of them after you left junior high?

If they were, what were you doing? Sleeping off last night, or cuddling in the back seat? It must have been something like that, because the rubbish you spout here, to those poor dolts, proves you didn’t absorb any of it.

But hang about; does a comfortable life style depend on you spouting this rubbish? That’s about the only reason I could find for anyone who did absorb any physics pushing the rubbish you do.

Money will do strange things to one’s understanding of stuff, won’t it?

Yes Hasbeen, I did, and still do - I give them. And as my bank manager will attest, it ain't for the money.

You, obviously, don't have a clue about physics, H a s b e e n - pure and simple even.

"If they were, what were you doing? Sleeping off last night, or cuddling in the back seat?"

Ooh Hasbeen that was so not fierce (snap, snap!) Now you lose ALL your princess points. And you know what? Catty stuff like that is reserved for sleep overs when girls get together to talk and comb each others hair. It used to be popular too before the middle ages, when your Ma and Pa were still young and fresh. Sorta like: “Hey qanda - I can't count but my scalp bugs are bigger than yours.” Tsk tsk.