[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by puckhog

This article (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx) claims to have a petition of 32,000 credentialed scientists who disagree with the opinion of climate change being the result of human activities. 9000 of the people who signed this have PhDs.

I don't know how much credence I would lend to Dr. Geri Halliwell. Perry Mason seemed like a smart guy, so maybe there is something to this naysaying.

Anyone here with a computer degree can get on that list. With 300,000,000 people in the U.S., of which about half tend to vote Republicans, and with the fake or duplicate names, I don't know how much you want to take that 32,000 number as proof of anything one way or another.

The solar cycle article appears to have been written by a seven year old rather than any kind of journalist:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

NASA's position on global warming has been very consistent:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html
The scientists concluded that man is warming the planet just as sun cycles have in the past. But the blogger guy dismissed those findings and since blogger guy knows far more than the scientists that actually did the study I'm going believe whatever blogger guy says.