I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) link says that 87 of those that signed the petition took money from industry. Really, well how much money has Al Gore made SO FAR from his man made global warming hoax (I say hoax because almost everyone of his predictions have now been proven wrong by one of the men that originally made them, "Mojib Latif"). Hummm it is over 100 million. How much money have the scientist that say man is the reason for global warming gotten from the industries of solar, wind and selling carbon off sets. Selling carbon offsets is a scam that even Madoff would be proud of.
I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) says some of them that signed the petition are economist. Well maybe Obama should have read his own economist (or at least the "Heritage Foundation" who said almost exactly what his Treasury Department said) report on what the "Cap and Trade" bill would have cost before (wink, wink) he came out 2 months later and said that it will only cost "the price of a stamp a day". Hummmmmm I think 1,760 dollars is at least 10 times the 126 dollar Obama said it was. The reason there are economist involve in the petition is because the petition gos into what the cost of the man made global warming hoax will cost our economy.
The man made global warming scientist have ether misrepresented their numbers or have out and out lied about their figures to make man responsible for global warming. The results of that have taken time to prove out that they have been wrong time and time again.
Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –
➢ The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
➢ CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
➢ Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
➢ The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
➢ The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
➢ “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
➢ Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
➢ The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
➢ It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
➢ Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
➢ In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=310&Itemid=1
Look at what has happen everytime TIME proves that the man made global warming wackos are wrong in their predictions they come out with new evidence to change the predictions.
Look at what Adumbical says about this: "Science is an ongoing process that CHANGES IF NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS LEARNED." Ho really so from that I get, no matter how many times the people that say "man made global warming" is true, he will never believe the scientist that have been proven to be corect time and time again.
Now I ask you, is it resonable (or even sane) for a person to keep believing in people that have been proven to be wrong time and time again (so much so they have to keep finding "NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION") and then to say the people that have been proven to be correct time and time again are wrong.