- The “31,000 scientists” myth is the infamous Oregon Petition, produced by a couple of rogue scientists, and is a fraud. The signatories are a selection of people with a Bachelors in any of several categories. Only about .1% are in climate and less than .3 % in related fields. A great many of the names cannot be traced and are likely fictitious or aroused from the dead. The Petition was accompanied by a fake paper made to look like a product of NASA and with a message from Fred Seitz who had been the “go to” scientist for the tobacco industry. In total, the number who can loosely be called scientists is less than one tenth of a percent of the number in the United States.
- The 1,000 scientist report does not exist. It is merely an article with no researching scientists signing.
- Gore and Suzuki do not exaggerate and the charge is libellous. East Anglia was subjected to eight official investigations and the only wrongdoing found was the hacking that led to the accusations.
- Rutan’s opinion is no more valid than any lay reader of this paper. It is his opinion weighed against the peer reviewed research of tens of thousands of climate scientists world wide. He is not a scientist.
- Don Easterbrook is best known for the fake graph he produced for the Republican Senate Committee. It represented the top of the Greenland Icecap as a proxy for world temperatures and was an altered copy of one by the more credible scientist, Alley. He also claimed it showed the current temperature whereas it actually ended at 1855. 160 years ago before the current warming began. He has no peer reviewed research to support his claims. They are false.
- Interesting that Mr. Slater recently “found” what has been known for a century: That there is tectonic shift. He should separate that from a climate that has changed over a few decades. Perhaps he could use his skills to accelerate the “shift” and cause more mountain uplift – the cause of great glaciation hundreds of millions of years ago as the CO2 was sequestered in the Himalayas.
- No scientists are dependent on the IPCC or the Paris Agreement. The suggestion is scurrilous. They are dependent on their teaching positions or their government salaries – their only source of income. Except for that handful that is paid by the fossil fuel industry to produce fake reports.
There is no debate. It is science versus moneyed interests and superstition. Debate ended long ago. It has been known since Fourier discovered the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 in 1824. The only debate has been about the amount and the timescale.
I come to this after many years of involvement and research not out of a fallacious appeal to a false authority. If Mr. Slater’s approach is that of a Consulting Engineer, then he would do a public service by listing the bridges he has been involved with so that rational people could avoid them.