The difference being that those questioning the scientists at East Angelia specifically, and demonstratively attempted to skew results, and data sets to fit their theory. Those that are being discredited on the opposing AGW side are having this done to them maliciously, and without addressing their argument, but rather personally. It is clear which side deserves the discredit to me.
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigationsAccording to The Guardian, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and science historian Naomi Oreskes make the case that the "attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry". Noting the initial media circus that occurred when the story first broke, Oreskes and Erik Conway, in an article about the history of climate change denial, observed that in the aftermath of the "climategate" investigations, "the vindication of the climate scientists has received very little coverage at all. Vindication is not as sexy as accusation, and many people are still suspicious. After all, some of those emails, taken out of context, sounded damning. But what they show is that climate scientists are frustrated, because for two decades they have been under attack."
Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at Burson-Marsteller, also observed what appeared to be an organised effort to discredit climate science. Royce described "climategate" as "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science, and disproportionate reporting of the original story "widely amplified by climate deniers", with much less coverage of reports that had cleared the scientists. Journalist Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review criticised newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever." CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.
the Oregon Petition is not the only one out there, from your own source....
BTW, the SEPP report from 1992 includes scientists that you earlier said didn't exist in my argument such as:The Oregon Petition is the third, and by far the largest, of three prominent efforts to argue that the scientific consensus on global warming does not exist; the other two are the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, and the Leipzig Declaration.
But I am sure that nothing I say to a proponent of turning my exhalations into a taxable substance is much interested in just how foolish this AGW crap is.* David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
* Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center
* Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.
* Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University
* Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
* Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
* Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia
* Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory
* Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center
* John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA
* H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM
* Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois
* Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University
* Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute
* Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director
* Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service
* Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University
* Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services
* Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force
* Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist
* Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service
* Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board
* Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology
* Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
* Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation
* Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.
* William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University
* David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist
* Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.
* Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center
* Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University
* David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
* Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma
* Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist
* Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM
* Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College
* James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research
* Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering
* Brian Sussman, Meteorologist
* Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
* H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist
* Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University
* Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist
* William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory
* Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project
SEPP and the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming - SourceWatch
LOL! Another very credible survey! Leipzig Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From your own source:
So, you must realize that you prove my point. You disagree with it so it is invalid to you. Unfortunately for you, you don't decide what is and what isn't accepted.Singer in editorial columns appearing in hundreds of websites and major publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, The Plain Dealer, Memphis Commercial Appeal, The Seattle Times, and The Orange County Register. Jeff Jacoby, a columnist with the Boston Globe, describes the signers of the Leipzig Declaration as "climate scientists" that "include prominent scholars." Think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and Australia's Institute for Public Affairs calls them "noted scientists." Both the Leipzig Declaration and Frederick Seitz's Oregon Petition have been quoted as authoritative sources during deliberations in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
Although the key data on which the Leipzig declaration relied (see: satellite temperature record) has been invalidated by subsequent research, and much new evidence has accumulated, the declaration continues to be cited, along with the Oregon petition as evidence of the current views of scientists on climate change. Moreover, the organizers have not changed their stated position of rejecting anthropogenic global warming.
So go ahead and continue to look foolish.
And for the record, I'm against cap and trade, or even taxing CO2-producing industries. I am for encouraging the development of cleaner industries and systems (such as cars). I think they should be encouraged to the point that electric cars, for example, are a superior option than gas-burning cars. If such things are encouraged to develop they will get better and better and cheaper and cheaper. So if you don't like the idea of buying a Fisker. That's totally fine. Don't. Other people will want them and it should make no difference to you if a Fisker is their car of choice. Let the electric economy mature just as the oil economy was permitted (and encouraged) to mature, then lets compare them.
And now for the rest of the story:
According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. Perhaps the most prominent signatory to the declaration was Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, a former research scientist for NASA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography . The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".
The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.
The 1995 declarations begins: "As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate". However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study.
In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors.
 The 1997 Declaration
The 1997 declaration updated the 1995 declaration in a number of ways. The most obvious difference was its focus on the Kyoto Protocol, as the Kyoto conference was in the process of being finalised. The declaration says:
"We believe the Kyoto Protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living. ... We consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature."
The 1997 declaration also updated its citations of evidence that appeared to run contrary to the consensus on global warming. For example, the 1995 declaration cites "observations from earth satellites," where the 1997 declaration cites "observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes." As with satellite data, subsequent analysis of radiosondes has shown a statistically-significant warming trend.
The declaration begins: "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". As with the 1995 declaration, questions have been raised about the scientific background of the signers, and others have questioned the degree to which they can be deemed to be independent. Because many of those who signed the 1997 declaration also signed the 1995 declaration, the concerns raised by David Olinger and others after the 1995 declaration are still relevant.
The signers are generally described by Fred Singer and his supporters as climate scientists, although the current signers also include 25 weather presenters. One key report opposing the scientific credentials of the signers was a Danish Broadcasting Company TV special by Řjvind Hesselager. Hesselager attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, Hesselager claimed that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter). As a result of Hesselager's report, Singer removed some, but not all, of the discredited signatures. The number of signatures on the document, according to the SEPP's own press releases, has declined from 140 (according to a December 1997 press release) to 105 (as of February 2003).
The SEPP's position is that "a few of the original signers did not have the 'proper' academic credentials - even though they understand the scientific climate issues quite well. To avoid this kind of smear, we want to restrict the Leipzig Declaration to signers with impeccable qualifications." To address the signer credibility issue, the SEPP has provided considerably more information about each signer on their website and lists the weather presenters separately from the other signers.
Last edited by AdamT; 01-09-12 at 05:28 PM.