[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, saying they were a percentage of the 31,000 provided what information?

Home-schooled or GED? No, really, I would like to know how you developed those thinking skills [rolls eyes].

(a) The petition of 31,000 names contains far too many bogus entries, no control over who signs or their qualifications, no more accuracy than a poll on a freeper website asking "Hate Hillary? Yes or Hell Yes." OISM refuses to prove validity so the claim is exaggerated and lacking any value.
(b) one of your links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) provides a list of actual scientists, not "skeptics"; I didn't dispute the validity of those on this list, just the relatively small number (41) -- vastly smaller compared to bogus claim noted in (a) above and to the vast majority in agreement with IPCC. The Wiki entry states plainly that "This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful."
(c) I pointed you to a list of GW skeptics and excerpted this disclaimer ("It should be noted that the persons and organizations listed here are not necessarily scientists or scientific organizations.") so that you could see the difference. Is simple comprehension like that beyond you?

Originally Posted by This_person

I gave a Wiki list of people skeptical of the hype, who happen to be professionals in the weather field.

It's "climate" not "weather" and (yet, again!) I didn't dispute the people on that short list.

Originally Posted by This_person

I also gave a list of "faithful" who lost their faith in the mythology of man-made climate change from the US Senate.

Yah, oil-man Inhofe's website -- now there's a brainiac.

Originally Posted by This_person

Here's some of the science as to why people who used to believe don't any more. Note, the word "science". And, a report on the fact that, if it's even occuring, global warming could not be man-made. And, another. But, read this comprehensive look first. Or, this one[indent]

Here's some of the changes the IPCC had to do to correct their errors.

What? The IPCC corrected errors?? How effin' biased of them!!

I find it hard to believe that you understand any of this science; it appears that you cherry-pick the alternate suppositions that disagree with what you already don't want to hear, whether they are from legitimate studies (a few) or the fossil-fuel propaganda machine (the majority). If you do understand this stuff, go to realclimate.org and search their website for your dissenting data du jour. 9 times out of 10 they will have already refuted the lies and will provide links to the sources. Yeah, go ahead and scoff but it is written by climate scientists and they stay away from policy BS. RealClimate
However, I suspect that you will continue to get your disinformation from the "pseudo-science for sale" lobbyists and carbon-owned websites. Whatever. (Lord Monckton? OFP.)

Originally Posted by This_person

Sad to see your little world crumble, isn't it?

It will be sad for your GGKs when they see theirs flood.