tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post2978207803662187524..comments2011-12-27T15:06:03.984-05:00Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-36220457386607846502009-10-15T21:49:20.187-04:002009-10-15T21:49:20.187-04:00

What is telling is you cannot list any of the names from the AMS or AGU since no poll was ever taken. Those statements were voted on by a majority of their councils.<br /><br />Council Sizes:<br /><br />American Geophysical Union (AGU) - 27 Members<br /><br />American Meteorological Society (AMS) - 21 Members<br /><br />Hardly compelling. Get back to me when you can produce a poll of these

Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-57556483355343208922009-10-09T14:04:05.403-04:002009-10-09T14:04:05.403-04:00

That you can actually list the names of all the skeptics is telling. To put the size of your list in perspective, the Amercian Meteorological Society has over 14,000 members and the American Geophysical Union has over 50,000 members.

Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18294901296411373579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-41922825021653100382008-03-18T22:29:00.000-04:002008-03-18T22:29:00.000-04:00

I've made the correction:<BR/><BR/>William Kininmonth, B.Sc., M.Sc., Retired Head of the Australian National Climate Centre, Australia

Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-81389797752052443382008-03-15T06:39:00.000-04:002008-03-15T06:39:00.000-04:00

Just like to point out in your list of scientists, William Kininmonth was not the head of Bureau of Meteorology, he was instead the Head of the Climate Centre in the Bureau of Meteorology.

JohnGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14645691301581815653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-7858319167448867022008-01-02T17:01:00.000-05:002008-01-02T17:01:00.000-05:00

Ignore? Have you even looked at the graphs and statistics? Once you do, it will be even more clear that their is no proof of man-made global warming.<BR/><BR/>As for pollution. POLLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING!<BR/><BR/>The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:<BR/>- Carbon dioxide (CO2)<BR/>- Methane (CH4)<BR/>- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous,

Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-6444763305056843422007-12-27T22:01:00.000-05:002007-12-27T22:01:00.000-05:00

Even if we choose to ignore the graphs and statistics, don't we have a moral obligation to keep the earth clean? Surely you don't deny that humans are polluting the oceans and the air?

Samhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11792683576637647269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-33201189755613487442007-12-18T08:01:00.000-05:002007-12-18T08:01:00.000-05:00

Thanks, I have this included already in the <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050" REL="nofollow">The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource</A> <BR/><BR/>under <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm" REL="nofollow">Greenland - Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice</A> (

Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-20172191708824621992007-12-16T20:14:00.000-05:002007-12-16T20:14:00.000-05:00

You might find this noteworthy:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/osu-eha121207.php" REL="nofollow">Earth's heat adds to climate change to melt Greenland ice</A>:<BR/><BR/>Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice. They have found at

Porkopolishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16990790918813701820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-47204546447475455952007-11-07T19:00:00.000-05:002007-11-07T19:00:00.000-05:00

That is how the propaganda works. They do not have real irrefutable science to debate with and instead need to smear all dissenting opinion while denying it exists.

Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-92128376745187850922007-11-07T16:57:00.000-05:002007-11-07T16:57:00.000-05:00

I once posted a list similar to this (if quite a bit shorter) to an email group I'm on in response to the consensus claim. I was promptly told that they were all in the pockets of Big Oil and industry, and that they were all not "real" scientists - because if they were, they'd agree with Al Gore.<BR/><BR/>*snort*<BR/><BR/>And excellent post, btw.

Kunoichihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08548985882557242941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-3633614745483423252007-11-06T13:54:00.000-05:002007-11-06T13:54:00.000-05:00

Latest satellite measurements show temps continuing to fall..<BR/>http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2007/11/more-than-by-ba.html

Mike M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/13416235741182138217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-62684950332667170732007-11-06T13:53:00.000-05:002007-11-06T13:53:00.000-05:00

You can count on weatherman Craig James at WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, Mi.<BR/>http://blogs.woodtv.com/?cat=11

Mike M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/13416235741182138217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-87532672605605890482007-11-02T23:18:00.000-04:002007-11-02T23:18:00.000-04:00

Just an FYI: Dr. Tim Patterson is already listed under:<BR/><BR/>R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada

Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-56495235573001668002007-11-02T00:45:00.000-04:002007-11-02T00:45:00.000-04:00

You have both been added thank you for offering.

Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-45901620946720129962007-11-01T08:34:00.000-04:002007-11-01T08:34:00.000-04:00

It may be elementary ,but ice floats on water according to its weight and density. When floating ice melts it does not raise the water level.<BR/>The north pole is floating like this and if it melted tomorrow the sea level would not be effected. If ice resting on rock below sea level should also melt the result is the same. Ice on land or excess above that mentioned above is not of sufficient

johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11037678665307012871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-67033304435299969302007-11-01T07:04:00.000-04:002007-11-01T07:04:00.000-04:00

Count me in.<BR/><BR/>Allan M.R. MacRae, <BR/>B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton University PaleoClimatologist should also be added to this list.<BR/><BR/>Please see our 2002 article, co-authored with Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard University Astrophysicist, at: <BR/><BR/>http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

AllanMacRaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08292427077813233417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9481975.post-35242652706413196442007-10-31T13:40:00.000-04:002007-10-31T13:40:00.000-04:00

Include my name with the meteorologist!<BR/>Thomas B Gray, MS Meteorology.<BR/>23 years as a weather forecaster, 20 more in research/support.

tgray80http://www.blogger.com/profile/14816331501231019438noreply@blogger.com