<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5329857034306331360&hl=pl&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true"
Greenland has been ice covered for more than 100,000 years. The Vikings only settled along the ice-free coast, as there is still today. The Vikings were driven off Greenland by a rather lengthy "little ice age" that lasted for centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
They were, they have since been removed. That's the problem with "bulk email" petitions -- anyone can sign them (and they do.) Currently the bulk of the "scientist" signers are dentists, physicists, biochemists -- they've even admitted that of the 30000 signatures, at best 2500 are "scientists" and the bulk of those are physicists, not climatologists.
Thats exactly that point. THE CLIMATE CHANGES. It changed before cars were invented. These statists are running around saying the climate changed over the last 100 years so it must be our fault.
Actually, the web site lists more than 9000 PhDs. I don't know what your definition of scientist is. They clearly list their criteria. They don't have a dentist category as far as I can tell. Of course they are not all "climatologists". I doubt there are 30000 "climatologists" in the US. However, climate models are based on physics. E.g. the greenhouse effect is (mainly) based on radiation physics. The direct greenhouse effect from CO2 is fairly well understood. It is very very limited. The climate models make a lot of other assumptions to create a multiplier effect. Those assumptions are not based on generally accepted physics though. If you don't accept critisism from physicists you place the climate models on a very unscientific foundation. The IPCC crowd claims there is consensus in the scientific community. Those claims are based almost entirely on petitions similar to the one you seem to reject. There is also one severly critized literature study by Oreskes from 2004 that noone has been able to replicate, since it didn't use objective criteria. Interestingly though, an attempt to replicate it in 2007 has indicated decreasing consensus over time.
No offense, but I don't get my climatology from MD's and pharmacists -- you can look at the list and see the number of MD's in there. I Google searched a few names and you'll find pharmacists and biochem majors, not climatologists. In fact, pick any five names from the list and see which one is a climatologist. Just to clarify, there have now been two of these petition drives -- the latest generated by bulk mailing. It was the old one, apparently, which had more joke names on it. The current one is shameful in its own way, naturally: "Most offensive is the use, once again, of the 96-year-old Dr. Fred Seitz as the lead signatory. Seitz was once a widely respected scientist; he's a former President of the National Academy of Sciences and a one-time President of Rockefeller University. But he fell from grace in the 1970s when he signed on as chief scientist for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco company. He fell then further in 1989 when Alexander Holtzman at Philip Morris complained in an internal memo that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." "So, 18 years ago, Seitz was "not sufficiently rational" to meet the lenient scientific standards of the tobacco industry, but today, Art Robinson still feels it's ethical to send out a petition over Seitz's signature on one of the most pressing current scientific issues of the day. Just look for MD's. There's tons of them in there. Oh please. If you're going to stretch that far, you might as well say this is all based on chemistry so its okay to include chemists, too. Pick five names at random from the list and tell me which is a climatologist. I'll trust you to do this fairly. The website itself admits that there are only 39 climatologists in the list and I suspect that number is grossly inflated. CO2 laser absorption spectroscopy is not based on generally accepted science? Obviously, that's wrong. I notice you don't tell us which study in 2007 you're referring to. Oreskes found that 75% of peer reviewed papers supported the consensus position, and that 0% dissented from it. NASA also claims that there is a consensus view among climatologists. Science isn't done by bulk mail petition, and certainly not done by non-experts in the field.
So to clarify, do you believe that the massively increased CO2 levels in the air are being generated by someone or something else? Or is it that you believe that CO2 levels don't matter?