Well if we take the petition I listed above, and account for the over 30,000 scientists who have signed onto it in their protest against global warming, we come to the conclusion that not all of the names could be posted in one single post, and would take many to post them all in total. So here is a list of over 3,000 scientists who have signed the petition, all of them in their respectable fields of course:
Petition Signers in California
3,766 Signers out of 31,486 Total in US
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Janis I. Abele, Robert C. Abrams, Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Ava V Ackerman, DVM, Lee Actor, Humberto M. Acuna Jr., George Baker Adams, PhD, Lewis R. Adams, William John Adams, William H. Addington, Barnet R. Adelman, John H. Adrain, MD, Jack G. Agan, Sven Agerbek, Edward J Ahmann, MD, John J. Aiello, Arthur W. Akers, Gary L. Akerstrom, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, John S. Akiyama, Philip R. Akre, MD, Zaynab Al-Yassin, PhD, G. James Alaback, John A. Alai, Daniel C. Albers, Edward G Albert, John C. Alden, PhD, Alex F. Alessandrini, Fred Alexander, Ira H. Alexander, Rodolfo Q. Alfonso, R. Allahyari, PhD, Louis John Allamandola, PhD, Levi D. Allen, Robert C. Allen, William Edward Alley, PhD, Charles E. Allman, John J. Allport, PhD, Ronaldo A. Almero, David Altman, PhD, Herbert N. Altneu, Antonio R. Alvarez, Raymond Angelo Alvarez Jr., PhD, Farouk Amanatullah, Carmelo J. Amato, Marvin Earl Ament, Melvin M. Anchell, MD, Torben B. Andersen, PhD, Wilford Hoyt Andersen, PhD, Chris Anderson, Conrad E. Anderson, MD, James Anderson, Jane E. Anderson, Joy R. Anderson, PhD, Orson Lamar Anderson, PhD, Robert E. Anderson, Roscoe B. Anderson, MD, Ross S. Anderson, PhD, Thomas P. Anderson, Warren Ronald Anderson, Karen Andersonnoeck, Lois Andros, Walter S. Andrus, Claude B. Anger, Gregory W. Antal, Achilles P. Anton, MD, Rolando A. Antonio, Arturo Q. Arabe, PhD, John Arcadi, MD, Philip Archibald, Robert L. Archibald, Gary Arithson, Richard W. Armentrout, PhD, Baxter H. Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Charles Arney, George V Aros Chilingarian, PhD, George J. Asanovich, Edward V. Ashburn, Holt Ashley, PhD, Don O. Asquith, PhD, Everett L. Astleford, Greg J. Aten, Robert D. Athey Jr., PhD, Leonardo D. Attorre, Jerry Y. Au, Mike August, W. David Augustine, Thomas E. Aumock, Henry Spiese Aurand, Kenny Ausmus, Roger J. Austin, PhD, Philip J. Avery, Kenneth Avicola, Luis A. Avila, Theodore C. Awartkruis, PhD, T. G. Ayres, Wesley P. Ayres, PhD, William J. Babalis, MD, Ray M. Bacchi, Gordon R. Bachlund, William E Backes, Adrian Donald Baer, PhD, Henry P. Baier, Benton B. Bailey, Edmund J. Bailey, Liam P. Bailey, Ronald M. Bailey, Travis Bainbridge, Donald W. Baisch, Don Robert Baker, PhD, Mary Ann Baker, PhD, Norman F. Baker, PhD, Roland E. Baker, W. J. Baker, John A Balboni, Orville Balcom, Barrett S. Baldwin, PhD, David P. Baldwin, Ransom Leland Baldwin, PhD, George Balella, MD, Donald L Ball, George Ball, Glenn A Ballard, Martin Balow, John S Baltutis, John LeRoy Balzer, PhD, Cris C. Banaban, Herman William Bandel, PhD, Richard M. Banister, Ronald E. Banuk, Neil J. Barabas, George Baral, Ronald Barany, PhD, James W. Barcikowski, Norman E. Barclay, Brian S. Barcus, Randolph P. Bardini, Morrie Jay Barembaum, Grigory Isaakovich Barenblatt, PhD, Francis J. Barker, Horace A. Barker, PhD, Richard K. Barksdale, Mary J. Barlow, MD, Albert R. Barnes, Burton B. Barnes, Paul R. Barnes, Russell H. Barnes, John Barney, James Robert Barnum, PhD, Walter Barquist, MD, James P. Barrie, Bruce M. Barron, Robert H. Barron, MD, Gary D. Barry, Bruce C. Bartels, Don A. Bartick, Bob W. Bartlett, PhD, Janeth Marie Bartlett, PhD, Sarah H Bartling, William A Bartling, W. Clyde Barton Jr., Don Bartz, Cecil O. Basenberg, John E. Basinski, PhD, H. Smith Bass, Samuel Burbridge Batdorf, PhD, Barbara Batterson, Edward C. Bauer, PhD, Kurt Baum, PhD, Hans Peter Bausch, E. Beaton, David Beaucage, PhD, Robert A. Beaudet, PhD, Christine Beavcage, PhD, Horst Huttenhain Bechtel, Robert F. Bechtold, Donald J. Beck, Niels John Beck, PhD, Roy T. Beck, Tom G. Beck, Milton Becker, PhD, William H. Beckley, Arnold Orville Beckman, PhD*, Toni Lynn Beckman, PhD, Gary S. Beckstrom, James P. Beecher, Donald W. Beegle, Mark Beget, Nicholas Anthony Begovich, PhD, Jean E. Beland, PhD, Ralph Belcher, PhD, Charles Vester Bell, PhD, John Bell, Barbara Belli, PhD, Thomas J. Bellon Jr., Robert K. Bellue, Francis J. Belmonte, John F Below, PhD, John W. Ben, David J. Benard, PhD, Robert D. Benbow, Paul F. Bene, Barry P. Benight, Kurt A. Benirschke, MD, John Benjamin, PhD, Istvan S. Benko, William G. Benko, Kenneth W. Benner, PhD, Harold E. Bennett, PhD, Sidney A. Bensen, PhD, Andrew A. Benson, PhD, Herbert H. Benson, MD, John D. Benson, Roger Benson*, Sidney W. Benson, PhD, Margaret W. Benton, Philip H. Benton, John A. Bentsen, John A. Berberet, PhD, Louis Bergdahl, Augustus B. Berger, Lev I. Berger, PhD, Otto Berger, Leo H. Berk, MD, Ami E. Berkowitz, PhD, William I. Berks, Ted Gibbs Berlincourt, PhD, Baruch Berman, Louis Bernath, PhD, Dave Berrier, Lester P. Berriman, Carl E. Berry, Edwin X. Berry, PhD, David J. Berryman, Richard G. Berryman, Georgw J. Bertuccelli, Thomas E. Berty, Bruce A. Berwager, James A. Bethke, John C. Bettinger, MD, Ernest Beutler, MD, Vladislav A. Bevc, PhD, Dimitri Beve, PhD, John H. Beyer, PhD, Ashok K. Bhatnagar, Fred V. Biagini, Carl J. Bianchini, George A. Bicher, Michael D. Bick, PhD, Donald B. Bickler, Donald G. Bickmore, Lauren K. Bieg, Gregory A. Bierbaum, Richard V. Bierman, Jerry C. Billings, Kenneth William Billman, PhD, Charles J. Billwiller, Paul A. Bilunos, MD, R. L. Binsley, Norman Birch, Kenneth Bird, PhD, James Louden Bischoff, PhD, Clifford R. Bishop, John William Bishop, PhD, Kim Bishop, PhD, Linman O. Bjerken, Lars L. Bjorkman, MD, Paul A. Blacharski, MD, Melvin L. Black, Charles M. Blair, PhD, Francis Louis Blanc, Dean M. Blanchard, Leroy E. Blanchard, Donald W. Blancher, Hiram W. Blanken Jr., Michael S. Blankinship Jr., Joseph S. Blanton, Karl T. Blaufuss, John Blethen, PhD, Zegmund O. Bleviss, PhD, Max R. Blodgett, C. James Blom, PhD, David L. Blomquist, Leonard C. Blomquist, John Bloom, PhD, G. Bluzas, Warren P. Boardman, Carl Bobkoski, Gene Bock, Keith R. Bock, Richard M. Bockhorst, Gene E. Bockmier, William E. Boettger, Harold Bogin, Lawrence P Bogle, MD, Dale V. Bohnenberger, Eugene Bollay, Ellen D. Bolotin, PhD, Donald H Boltz, Charles M. Bolus, MD, Joseph C. Bonadiman, PhD, Stephen Alan Book, PhD, E. S. Boorneson, Iris Borg, PhD, W. K. Borgsmiller, MD, Manfred D. Borks, PhD, William R. Bornhorst, Gerald F. Borrmann, Anthony G. Borschneck, MD, Robert B. Bosler Jr., Harold O. Boss, Keith A. Bostian, PhD, Danil Botoshanksky, Gerald W. Bottrell, Michel Boudart, PhD, Robert L. Boulware, Kenneth P. Bourke, Robert H. Bourke, PhD, Douglas A. Bourne, Paul K. Bouz, MD, George I. Bovadiieff, Peter F. Bowen, David Bower, Warren H. Bower, John Bowers, William M. Bowers, Doug R. Bowles, Jan Bowman, C. Stuart Bowyer, PhD, Wilson E. Boyce*, Willis Boyd Sr., Delbert D. Boyer, William F. Bozich, PhD, Jerry A. Bradshaw, Derek Bradstreet, F P Brady, PhD, Matthew E. Brady, William B. Brady, Walton K. Brainerd, MD, J. C. Brakensiek, John W. Bramhall, Francis A. Brandt, Albert Wade Brant, PhD, Thomas E. Braun, Wesley J. Braun, Ben G. Bray, PhD, Warren D. Brayton, James C. Breeding, James D. Brehove, Robert L. Breidenbaugh, Ted Breitmayer, C. H. Breittenfelder, A. C. Breller, Walter B. Brewer, Theodore C. Brice, Alan G. Bridge, PhD*, Stephen G. Bridge, Robert M. Bridges*, James E. Briggs, PhD, Robert Briggs, Allan K Briney, MD, Donald F. Brink, PhD, Tyler Brinker, Francis Everett Broadbent, PhD, Sue Broadston, J R Brock, Ivor Brodie, PhD, Woody Brofman, PhD, Ronald J. Bromenschenk, Chistopher Bronny, Charles E. Bronson, Lionel H. Brooks, PhD, Ronald D. Brost, Robert John Brotherton, PhD, David Brown, Hal W. Brown, Howard J. Brown, James R. Brown, PhD, Linton A. Brown, Raymond E. Brown, Terrill E Brown, MD, D. Brownell, Don Brownfield, Peter Brubaker, David Bruce, MD, Gene Bruce, MD, Carl Bruice, Russell K. Brunner, Harvey F. Brush, Donald L. Brust, DVM, A. Bryan, Glenn H. Bryner, Michael J. Buchan, MD, Steven M. Buchanan, John H. Buchholz, PhD, Smil Buchman, Carl J. Buczek, PhD, Donald R. Buechel, MD, Ronald M. Buehler, Fred W. Bueker, Walter R. Buerger, MD, Robert R. Buettell, Oscar T. Buffalow, Sterling Lowe Bugg, Robert J. Bugiada, Victor E Buhrke, PhD, Brian J Bukala, William Murray Bullis, PhD, Ronald Elvin Bullock, Eric Buonassisi, Jacob Burckhard, Harvey Worth Burden, PhD, Herbert S. Burden Jr., Willard Burge, Milton
N. Burgess, Billy F. Burke, Gary Burke, James E. Burke, PhD, Richard Lerda Burke, PhD, Walter L. Burke, Lawrence H. Burks, James R. Burnett, PhD, Thomas K. Burnham, MD, Leslie L. Burns, PhD, Victor W. Burns, PhD, Roger L Burtner, PhD, Kittridge R. Burton, Douglas D. Busch, Francis R. Busch, Rick Buschini, Edwin F. Bushman, Mark M. Butier, David V. Butler, Thomas Austin Butterworth, PhD, Sidney Eugene Buttrill, PhD, Gary S. Buxton, Richard G. Byrd, MD, Algyte R. Cabak, Trish Cabral, William P. Cade, Ben Cagle, William M. Cahill, MD, David Stephen Cahn, PhD, Delver R. Cain, MD, Larry Caisuin, Richard E Cale*, Fred L. Calkins, Gary N. Callihan, Chris Calvert, PhD, Fred D Campbell, Henry W. Campbell, Malcolm D. Campbell, Nick Campion, Marsha A. Canales, George D. Candella, Thomas F. Canning, Arlen E. Cannon, Garry W. Cannon, Peter Cannon, PhD, Harvey L. Canter, Ronald J. Cantoni, Manfred Cantow, PhD, Charles A. Capp Spindt, PhD, Albert J. Cardosa, William Thomas Cardwell, Audrey M. Carlan, Carl E Carlson, George A. Carlson, PhD, Lloyd G. Carnahan, PhD, Edward Mark Carr, Lester E Carr II, PhD, Richard Carr, Gilbert C. Carroll, Jeffery L. Carroll, Walter R. Carrothers, Mary E. Carsten, PhD, David Carta, PhD, Jim Carter, Willie J. Carter, PhD, John G. Carver, PhD, Tony K. Casagranda, Ronald F. Cass, George Cassady, MD, Anthony A. Cassens, MD, Valen E. Castellano, James B. Castles, Kenneth B. Castleton Jr., Rick Cataldo, Henry P. Cate Jr., Russel K. Catterlin, W. L. Caudry, Thomas Kirk Caughey, PhD, Jerry Caulder, PhD, James E. Cavallin, James A. Cavanah, Chuck J. Cavanaugh, Neal C. Caya, Lee B. Cecil, Carl N. Cederstrand, PhD, Leland H Celestre, Pamela Chaffee, Rowand R. Chaffee, PhD, Carlton Chamberlain, Dilworth Woolley Chamberlain, PhD, John S. Chambers, MD, Oliver V. Chamness, Scott O. Chamness, Arthur D. Chan, Sham-Yuen Chan, PhD, Sunney L. Chan, PhD, Steven Chandler, MD, Berken Chang, PhD, Charles S. Chang, Freddy Wilfred L. Chang, PhD, Nicholas D. Change, Mien T. Chao, George Frederick Chapline Jr., PhD, Ross T. Charest, Bruce R. Charlton, Frank D. Charron, Joseph H Chasko, E. Cheatham, Boris A. Chechelnitsky, Alwin C. Chen, Donald Chen, Fred Y. Chen, Kun Hua Chen, PhD, Ming K. Chen, MD, Robin S. Chen, Wade Cheng, PhD, J C Chernicky, Dallas L. Childress, George V. Chilingar, PhD, Hong Chin, PhD, Jerry L. Chodera, Shary Chotai, Tai-Low Chow, PhD, Emmet H. Christensen, Howard L. Christensen, John D. Christensen, Kent T. Christensen, Steven L. Christenson, MD, George B. Christianson, Kent B. Christianson, Allison L. Christopher, Donald O. Christy, PhD, John E. Chrysler, Daryl Chrzan, PhD, Andy C. Chu, Constantino Chua, Craig P. Chupek, Stanford Church, Steven Ralph Church, PhD, Paul Ciotti, Joseph A. Cipolla, Fernando F. Cisneros, Lawrence P. Clapham, Javier F. Claramunt, Charles R. Clark, PhD, Harold A. Clark, Norman B Clark, Richard W. Clark, John Francis Clauser, PhD, Gordon Claycomb, Robert R. Claypool, Bruce Clegg, Carmine Domenic Clemente, PhD, William R Clevenger, Arnie L. Cliffgard, Watson S. Clifford, H. B. Clingempeel, Mansfield Clinnick, Thomas L Cloer Jr., Joseph F. Cloidt, Ronald E. Clundt, Harold E. Clyde, Paul Jerry Coder, Allen C. Codiroli, C. Robert Coffey, Karl Paley Cohen, PhD, Norman S. Cohen, Sam Cohen, Anthony W. Colacchia, Stefan Colban, Kenneth R. Cole, Miles L. Coleman, Robert G. Coleman, PhD, Joseph D. Coletta, Donald Colgan, John H. Collier, Thomas F. Collier, Dennis R. Collins, PhD, Irene B. Collins, DVM, Carlos Adolfo Colmenares, PhD, William B. Colson, PhD, Andre Coltrin, Robert Neil Colwell, PhD, William Tracy Colwell, PhD, Brian Comaskey, PhD, Stephen A. Comfort, PhD, David R. Comish, MD, Jacob C. Compton, Wayne M. Compton, Harry M. Conger, John T. Conlan, Stephen W Conn, Robert H. Conner, MD, Claud C. Conners, Mahlon C. Connett, MD, Bob A. Conway, Patrick J. Conway, Victoria O. Conway, Brandt Cook, Charles C. Cook, Frank R. Cook, PhD, Karl Cook, Thomas B. Cook Jr., PhD, James Barry Cooke, James W. Cooksley, Clarence G. Cooper, MD, Martin Cooper, Robert C. Cooper, PhD, Thomas Cooper, PhD, John D. Copley, Claude Coray, Reed S Coray, PhD, Stephen F. Corcoran, Bruce M. Cordell, PhD, Chris D. Core, John A. Corella, John L. Corl, Joe D. Corless, MD, Roy S. Cornwell, PhD, Nicholas J. Corolis, Wayne T. Corso, Humberto S. Corzo, George J. Cosmides, PhD, Antonio Costa, Harry Cotrill, James R. Coughlin, Danny R. Counihan, George D. Couris, MD, Arnold Court, PhD, Robert E. Covey, William G. Cowdin, Carrol B. Cox, Daniel L. Cox, Kenneth Robert Coyne, Daniel J. Cragin, Kenneth B. Craib, James E. Craig, PhD, Richard F. Craig, Donald James Cram, PhD, Eugene N. Cramer, Leroy L. Crandall, Walter E. Crandall, PhD, Chris L. Craney, PhD, Greg T. Cranham, John D. Craven, MD, Thomas V. Cravy, Dean Crawford, Myron N. Crawford, Dale Creasey, Justin A Creel, PhD, C. Raymond Cress, PhD, James Creswell, Tom Creswell, Cecil Crews, Phillip O. Crews, PhD, Robert W. Cribbs, Dennis M. Crinnion, Richard G. Crippen, Alipio B. Criste, Luanne S. Crockett, James H. Cronander, Gaines M Crook Sr., James G. Crose, PhD, Kevin P Cross, Deane L. Crow, MD, Herbert E. Crowhurst, Frank R. Crua, Richard Cruce, Duane Crum, PhD, Jacquelyn Cubre, William K. Culbreth, Arthur G. Cullati, PhD, Donald M. Culler, Floyd Leroy Culler, Peter A. Culley, Murl F. Culp, David Cummings, PhD*, John Cummings, Richard A. Cundiff, A. Cunningham, Edwin L. Currier, Damon R. Curtis, Detlef K. Curtis, Walter E. Curtis, Steven M Cushman, Kenneth H. Cusick, Donald F. Cuskelly, John M. Cuthbert, Leonard Samuel Cutler, PhD, Robert C. Cutone, Timothy B. D'Orazio, PhD, Allen F. Dageforde, Himatlal B. Dagli, Daniel P. Dague, Gregory A. Dahlen, MD, Dennis J. Daleiden, Richard Daley, PhD, Lloyd R. Dalton, Robert L. Daly, Philip G. Damask, Marvin V. Damm, PhD, William E. Daniel, Warren Daniels, Raisfeld I. Danse, MD, Moh Daoud, Henry T. Darlington, Gary L. Darnsteadt, Alan D Dartnell, Renato O. Dato, Clarence Theodore Daub, PhD, Phillip D. Dauben, Arthur A. Daush, Lynn Blair Davidson, PhD, William Davies, Bruce W. Davis, PhD*, H. Turia Davis, James P. Davis, Larry Alan Davis, PhD, Lawrence W. Davis, MD, W. Kenneth Davis*, Don F. Dawson, Paul J. de Fries, Angelo De Min, H. A. De Mirjian, David A. G. Deacon, PhD, John M. Deacon, Willett C. Deady, Tom E. Deakin, Douglas L. Dean, Donald Deardorff, PhD, Gerald A. Debeau, Daniel B. DeBra, PhD, Ronald J. Debruin, Robert Joseph Debs, PhD, Paul R. Decker, Curtis Kenneth Deckert, Kent Dedrick, PhD, J. M. Delano Jr., Cheryl K. Dell, PhD, Marc Dell'Erba, Charles C. DeMaria, Harold D Demirjian, Howard D. Denbo, MD, Warren W. Denner, PhD, William J Denney, Ronald W. Dennison, Wesley M. Densmore, Andrew Denysiak, PhD, Ralph T. Depalma, MD, Joseph George Depp, PhD, Ronny H. Derammelaere, Robert K. Deremer, PhD, Todd C. Derenne, Charles L. Des Brisay, Riccardo DeSalvo, PhD, Don Desborough, Brian J. Deschaine, Harold Desilets, Christopher R. Desley, MD, Alvin M Arden Despain, PhD, Steven A. DeStefano, MD, Robert E. Detrich, MD, Donald P. Detrick, James Edson Devay, PhD, Howard P. Devol, Robert V. Devore, PhD, Edmond M. Devroey, PhD, Thomas Gerry Dewees, Howard F Dey, Parivash P. Dezham, Arthur S. Diamond, Marian C. Diamond, PhD, Francis P. Diani, James D. Dibdin, MD, Wade Dickinson, Otto W. Dieffenbach, Rodney L. Diehl, Eugene L. Diepholz, Paul A Diffendaffer, Joseph Brun Digiorgio, PhD, Russell A. Dilley, Ben E. Dillon, DVM, John W. Dini, Judy Dirbas, David G. Dirckx, Ray Dirling Jr., Kenneth J. Discenza, Byron F. Disselhorst, Kent Diveley, MD, Steven J. Dodds, PhD, Marvin Dodge, PhD, Richard A Dodge, PhD, Ernest E. Dohner, Roy Hiroshi Doi, PhD, Renan G. Dominguez, Igor Don-Doncon, Chuck Donaldson, Armen M Donian, Michael W. Donley, PhD, T. Donnelly, PhD, Kerry L. Donovan, PhD, Brendan P Dooher, PhD, Robert F. Doolittle, PhD, David C. Doreo, Kelly A. Doria, DVM, Lowell C. Dorius, DVM, Bernhardt L. Dorman, PhD, Ronald J. Dorovi, Weldon B. Dorris, William R. Dotson, Richard L. Double, Steven G Doulames, Hanania Dover, Douglas B. Dow, Steven Dow, Henry R. Downey, Alexandria Dragan, PhD, Titus H. Drake, Gary L. Draper, William R Drennen, Daniel D. Drobnis,
Richard A. Drossler, Edward A. Drury, Stanley A. Drury, MD, Richard S. Dryden, C. F. Duane, C. Ducoing, Richard D. Dudley, Thomas Dudziak, William T. Duffy, PhD, Paul N. Duggan, Peter Paul Dukes, PhD, William J. Dulude, Arnold N. Dunham, John G. Dunlap, James R. Dunn, Leo P. Dunne, John Ray Dunning, PhD, Thomas G. Dunning, Robin K. Durkee, Gordon B. Durnbaugh, Mark R. Dusbabek, Sophie A. Dutch, John A. Dutton, A. J. Duvall, James G. Duvall II, PhD, James R. Duvall, Jack Dvorkin, PhD, Paul Dwyer, Denzel Leroy Dyer, PhD, George O. Dyer, J. T. Eagen, Donald G. Eagling, Edwin Toby Earl, Francis J. Eason, MD, Eric G. Easterling, Leslie P. Eastman, A. T. Easton, Kenneth K. Ebel, Richard Eck, Lee W. Eddington, Paul R. Edris, Dennis Dean Edwall, David F. Edwards, PhD, Eugene H. Edwards, PhD, J. Gordon Edwards, PhD*, Robert L. Edwards, William R. Edwards, Wilson R. Edwards, Maurice R. Egan, PhD, John P. Ehlen, Kenneth Warren Ehlers, PhD, Walter Eich, Robert E. Eichblatt, Robert Leslie Eichelberger, PhD, Herbert H. Eichhorn, PhD, Donald I. Eidemiller, PhD, David Eitman, Ismat E. El-Souki, MD, Dennis Eland, Wm C. Elhoff, Cindy Eliahu, PhD, Shalom K. Eliahu, Uri Eliahu, Thomas G. Elias, MD, Bert V. Elkins, James C Elkins, William J. Ellenberger, Jules K. Ellingboe, M. Edmund Ellion, PhD, Robert D. Elliott, Jim E. Ellison, Hugh Ellsaesser, PhD, Gerard W. Elvernum, Cedric B. Emery, MD, Frank E. Emery, PhD, Norman Harry Enenstein, PhD, Rodger K. Engebrethson, Franz Engelmann, PhD, Douglas M. Engh, MD, Harold M. Engle, Richard E Engle, Grant A. Engstrom, James E. Enstrom, PhD, Bruce Enyeart, Dennis A. Erdman, Wallace J. Erichsen, Alfred A. Erickson, MD, Myriam R. Eriksson, Christine Erkkila, F. H. Ernst Jr., MD, Rodney L. Eson, John J. Etchart, DVM, Robert H. Eustis, PhD, Charles Andrew Evans, PhD, Charles B. Evans, George W. Evans, Marjorie W. Evans, PhD, Dale Everett, Ray Exley, MD, David S. Fafarman, Robert S. Fagerness, Jack J. Fahey, John C. Fair, PhD, Raymond M. Fairfield, Clay E. Falkner, Steven L. Fallon, Mark W. Fantozzi, Earl L. Farabaugh, W. D. Fargo, Jim O. Farley, Clayton C. Farlow, Emory W. Farr, Gregory L. Farr, James P. Fast, Charles Raymond Faulders, PhD, John R. Favorite, Raymond J. Fazzio, Juergen A. Fehr, John D. Feichtner, PhD, Eugene P. Feist, Betty B. Feldman, W. O. Felsman, David Clarke Fenimore, PhD, John R Fennell, Paul Roderick Fenske, PhD, Robert B. Fenwick, PhD, Richard K. Fergin, PhD, David B. Ferguson, PhD, Kenneth Edmund Ferguson, PhD, Linn D. Ferguson, Richard L. Ferm, PhD, Louis R. Fermelia, Walter Fetsch, John A. Feyk, William J. Fields, Dale H. Fietz, Donald L. Fife, William Gutierrez Figueroa, MD, Alexandra T. Filer, Mark Filowitz, PhD, Reinald Guy Finke, PhD, Frederick T. Finnigan, William Louis Firestone, PhD, Bryant C. Fischback, Dwayne F. Fischer, PhD, Raymond F. Fish, Donald Fisher, George H Fisher, Kathleen Mary Flynn Fisher, PhD, Russell L. Fisher, MD, William M. Fishman, PhD, Lanny Fisk, PhD, Jeremy W. Fitch, Richard A. Fitch, Thomas P. Fitzmaurice, James L. Fitzpatrick, William J. Fitzpatrick, PhD, Richard H. Fixler, MD, Loren W. Fizzard, Klaus Werner Flach, PhD, Robert F. Flagg, PhD, Horacio S. Fleischman, MD, Alison A. Fleming, PhD, Donald H. Flowers, Paul H. Floyd, Edward Gotthard Foehr, PhD, Eldon Leroy Foltz, MD, Robert Young Foos, MD*, Michael J. Foote, Irvin H. Forbing, Samuel W. Fordyce, Paul L. Forester, Charles J. Forquer, Robert R. Forsberg, John A Foster, Robert John Foster, PhD, Henry E. Fourcade, MD, Douglas J. Fouts, PhD, Elliott J. Fowkes, PhD, Brian D. Fox, Donald W. Frames, Dorothea Frames, Dale M. Franchak, Clifford Frank, Robert Frank, Maynard K. Franklin, Randy E. Frazier, Reese L. Freeland, Matt J. Freeman, Reola L. Freeman, Walter J. Freeman, MD, H. Friedemann, Serena M. Friedman, MD, Belmont Frisbee, Tom Frisbee, Earl E. Fritcher, Herman F. Froeb, MD, David Fromson, PhD, Roger J. Froslie, Charles W. Frost, Charles M. Fruey, Si Frumkin, Wilton B. Fryer, George Fryzelka, Frederick A. Fuhrman, PhD, Robert Alexander Fuhrman, Willard P. Fuller Jr., Lawrence W. Funkhouser, Rene G. Fuog, David William Furnas, MD, Ron Gabel, John W. Gabelman, PhD, Jerry D. Gabriel, Michael T. Gabrik Jr., Richard A. Gaebel, John Gagliano, Lorenzo A. Gaglio, Gilbert O. Gaines, Russell A Gaj, John R. Galat, Robert G. Galazin, Darrell L. Gallop, PhD, Yakob V. Galperin, PhD, Kurt Gamara, PhD, Harold D. Gambill, MD, Kurt E. Gamnra, PhD, Luis A. Ganaja, Perry S. Ganas, PhD, Shirish M. Gandhi, Clark W. Gant, Tony S. Gaoiran, Carl W. Garbe, Allen J. Garber, Richard Hammerle Garber, PhD, Alejandro Garcia, PhD, Wayne Scott Gardner, PhD, Walter Garey, PhD, Jack Garfinkel, Joseph F. Garibotti, PhD, Jay M. Garner, Thomas M. Garrett, PhD, William H. Garrison, Thomas D. Gartin, MD, Justine Spring Garvey, PhD, Jerrie W. Gasch, Nicholas D. Gaspar, Robert W. Gassin, Barry Gassner, Robert H. Gassner, Charles F. Gates, Frederick Gates, George L. Gates, Gerald Otis Gates, PhD, Thomas C. Gates, MD, G. R. Gathers, PhD, Phillips L. Gausewitz, MD, Steven D. Gavazza, PhD, Richard L. Gay, PhD, Joseph Gaynor, PhD, Bill A. Gearhart, Colvin V. Gegg, PhD, Dennis Gehri, PhD, Paul Jerome Geiger, PhD, Paul J. Gelger, PhD, Mike Gemmell, Michael S. Genewick, Edward J George, Sr., Michael L. Gerber, MD, Renee T. Gerry, Melvin L Gerst, Paul R. Gerst, Edward C. Gessert, Alex Gezzy, John W. Gibbs, Joseph P. Gibbs, A. Reed Gibby, PhD, Ronald C. Gibson, Warren C. Gibson, PhD, Houghton Gifford, Dominick R. Giglini, Larry L. Gilbert, MD, Lyman F. Gilbert Sr., Paul T. Gilbert, Susan Gillen, Wm. R. Gillen, Paul A. Gillespie, William N. Gillespie, Benjamin A. Gillette, Bruce B. Gillies, Robert J. Gilliland, Sherwyn R. Gilliland, Mike Gilmore, Dale P. Gilson, Dezdemona M. Ginosian, William F. Girouard, PhD, Silvio A. Giusti, Dain S. Glad, Dan L. Glasgow, Jerome E. Glass, Stephen M. Glatt, Thomas Glaze, John P. Gleiter, John H. Glenn, Renee V. Glennan, John D. Glesmann, John B. Glode, Vladimir M. Glozman, PhD, Aric Gnesa, Robert W. Goddard, Susan Godwin, Ludwig Edward Godycki, PhD, Robert W. Goedjen, David Jonathan Goerz, James A. Goethel, MD, Edward Allan Goforth, David J. Goggin, PhD, Alfred Goldberg, PhD, Brian J. Golden, DVM, Alan Goldfien, MD, Steven D. Goldfien, Kenneth J. Goldkamp, Bruce Goldman, John Paul Goldsborough, PhD, Norman E. Goldstein, PhD, Vladimir Golovchinsky, PhD, Michel Gondouin, PhD, Dionicio Gonzales, Esteban G. Gonzales, Alexander E. Gonzalez, Ronald Keith Goodman, Roy G. Goodman, Byron Goodrich, James D. Goodridge, James W. Goodspeed, Mikel P. Goodwin, James K. Goodwine Jr., PhD, Gary E. Gordon, DVM, Milton J. Gordon, Rex B. Gordon, Robert Gordon, PhD, William H. Gordon, MD, Nelson G. Gordy, Donald B. Gorshing, Keith E. Gosling, John Ray Goss, Quentin L. Goss, Wilbur Hummon Goss, PhD*, Martin S. Gottlieb, Gerald Geza Gould, Robert George Gould, Robert D. Gourlay, Darrell Gourley, Lawrence I. Grable, Harald Grabowsky, Ben G. Grady, PhD, Richard W. Graeme, Leroy D. Graff, Kerry M Gragg, Charles Richard Graham, MD, Dee McDonald Graham, PhD, Gary C. Graham, PhD, Alex T. Granik, PhD, Jerry Grant, Edward L. Grau, Walter L. Graves, Clifton H Gray Jr., Lauren H. Grayson, MD, Hue T. Green, Joseph M. Green, PhD, Leon Green Jr., PhD, Russell H. Green Jr., Charles R. Greene, PhD, Eugene Willis Greenfield, PhD, Charles August Greenhall, PhD, Edward C. Greenhood, John Edward Greenleaf, PhD, Jeffrey S Greenspoon, MD, Peter Gregg, David Tony Gregorich, PhD, Thomas J. Gregory, Gennady H. Grek, Kurt G. Greske, David R. Gress, Donald N. Griffin, Roger D. Griffin, Travis Barton Griffin, PhD, Roy S. Griffiths, PhD, Thomas J. Grifka, MD, Donald Wilburn Grimes, PhD, Leclair Roger Grimes, Charles Groff, Alan B. Gross, DVM, Morton Grosser, PhD, James Grote, PhD, Eric Gruenler, Raymond H. Gruetert, Mike A. Grundvig, Mike Gruntman, PhD, Ross R. Grunwald, PhD, Louis E. Grzesiek, Michael R. Guarino Sr., Richard Austin Gudmundsen, PhD, Jacques P. Guertin, PhD, Gareth E. Guest, PhD, John O. Guido, MD, Darryl E. Gunderson, Richard R. Gundry, Robert Charles Gunness, PhD, Riji R. Guo, Dwight F. Gustafson, Kermit M. Gustafson, Eugene V. Gustavson, Daniel A. Gutkne
cht, Steven L. Gutsche, Michael D. Gutterres, John V. Guy-Bray, PhD, Michael A. Guz, Geza Leslie Gyorey, PhD, Bjorn N. Haaberg, Glenn Alfred Hackwell, PhD, D. Haderli, Brian L. Hadley, Arno K. Hagenlocher, PhD, Chuck R. Haggett, Hashem Haghani, Richard B. Hagle, DVM, Robert A. Hagn, Pierre Vahe Haig, MD, Samir N. Haji, PhD, Marlund E Hale, PhD, Paul F. Halfpenny, Kenneth Lynn Hall, PhD, Robert J. Hall, Sylvia C. Hall, Daniel P. Haller, Albert A. Halls, PhD, Herbert H. Halperin, Martin B. Halpern, PhD, Lee Edward Ham, Frank C. Hamann, Ronald O. Hamburger, Edward E. Hamel, PhD, Matt J. Hamilton, Bruce Dupree Hammock, PhD, Stephen Hampton, Anthony James Hance, PhD, Taylor Hancock, Cadet Hand, PhD*, David A. Hand, John W. Hanes, Peter Hangarter, Dale L. Hankins, Gerald M. Hanley, Dean A. Hanquist, Allan G. Hanretta, MD, Ethlyn A. Hansen, L. J. Hansen, Peder M. Hansen, PhD, Robert Clinton Hansen, PhD, Warren K. Hansen, MD, Rowland Curtis Hansford, James C. Hanson, Lloyd K. Hanson, John Warvelle Harbaugh, PhD, Ralph Harder, MD, John A. Hardgrove, Edgar Erwin Hardy, PhD, Vernon E. Hardy, Kenneth A. Harkewicz, PhD, Roger N. Harmon, Terry W. Harmon, PhD, John D. Harper Jr., John Harper, Kevin J. Harper, Alfred Harral, III, William E Harries, PhD, David Harriman, Bryan J. Harrington, Kent Harris, Rita D. Harris, Robert O. Harris, S. P. Harris, PhD, Tyler Harris, MD, Burton Harrison, John David Harrison, PhD, Marvin Eugene Harrison, Robin Harrison, Jim Harrower, MD, Philip T. Harsha, PhD, James B. Hart, Darrell W. Hartman, Maurice G. Hartman, George L. Hartmann, William L. Hartrick, Meredith P. Harvan, Jack L. Harvey, Ted F. Harvey, PhD, Dieter F. Haschke, Darr Hashempour, PhD, Hashaliza M. Hashim, Jiri Haskovec, PhD, Robert D. Hass, MD, Steven J. Hassett, George Hathaway, PhD, Alson E. Hatheway, Mark Hatzilambrou, Warren Hauck, John C. Haugen, Kenneth E. Haughton, PhD, Donald G. Hauser, John E. Hauser, MD, Arthur Herbert Hausman, MD, Alfred H. Hausrath, PhD, Warrnen M. Haussler, Walter B. Havekorst, PhD, Anton J. Havlik, PhD, George E Hawes, Michael D. Hawkins, Brice C. Hawley, Dale R. Hayden Sr., Bill J. Hayes, Robert M. Hayhurst, Carl H. Hayn, PhD, Beth Haynes, MD, William E. Haynes, Gerald Hays, MD, Paul E. Hazelman, R. Nichols Hazelwood, PhD, Dean Head, David L. Heald, PhD, Albert Heaney, PhD, Stephen D. Heath, George E. Heddy II, Solomon R. Hedges, Larry E. Hedrick, Lee Opert Heflinger, PhD, Frank C. Heggli, Bettina Heinz, PhD, Richard L. Heinze, William D Heise, Ralph A. Heising, MD, William B. Heitzman, George W. Heller, Denise M. Helm, Carl N Helmick Jr., William F. Helmick, John W. Helphrey, Raymond G. Hemann, F. R. Hemeon, John E. Hench, PhD, Kenneth P. Henderson, Curtis E. Hendrick, Jonathan P Hendrix, Joseph E. Henn, Carol E. Henneman, MD, Joseph Hennessey, Gary L. Hennings, Donald M. Henrikson, MD, R. R. Heppe, John A. Herb, PhD, Charles A Herbert, Noel Martin Herbst, PhD, Bruce J. Herdrich, Don D. Herigstad, Elvin Eugene Herman, Ronald C. Herman, PhD, Robert W. Hermsen, PhD, Charles L. Hern, Brian K. Herndon, Leo J. Herrerra Jr., James L. Herrick, MD*, David I. Herrington, Christian Herrmann Jr., MD, Roger R. Herrscher, John William Baker Hersey, PhD, Robert T. Herzog, PhD, Chris A. Hesse, David A. Hessinger, PhD, Norman E. Hester, PhD, Paul G. Hewitt, Robert E Heyden, Acle V. Hicks, William B. Hight, Barry J. Hildebrand, Warren W. Hildebrandt, Mahlon M.S. Hile, PhD, Alan T. Hill, John H. Hill, Larry Hill, Robert Hill, PhD, David Hillaker, John R. Hilsabeck, MD, E. B. Hilton, Hubert L. Himes, Carl Hinners, Kenneth A. Hitt, Charles A. Hjerpe, DVM, James R Hoagland, L. C. Hobbs, Peter B. Hobsbawn, Robert A. Hochman, MD, John R Hoddy, Lee N. Hodge, David Hodgkins, Elizabeth M. Hodgkins, DVM, Paul T. Hodiak, Robert S. Hoekstra, William B. Hoenig Jr., Robert G. Hoey, C. Hoff, Phil Hoff, PhD, Howard Torrens Hoffman, PhD, Marvin Hoffman, PhD, Carl E. Hoffmeier, Jeffrey E. Hofmann, Roger C. Hofstad, Clarence Lester Hogan, PhD, Roy W. Hogue, Doug Hoiles, Arnold H. Hoines, Franklin K. Holbrook, David Holcberg, Joy R. Holdeman, George R. Holden, Richard Holden, Robert E. Holder, C. H. Holladay Jr., Dennis R. Hollars, PhD, Charles L. Hollenbeck, Delbert C. Hollinger, Brent E Hollingworth, David F. Holman, William H. Holmes, Harold T. Holtom Jr., Vincent H. Homer Jr., Andrew L. Hon, Richard Churchill Honey, PhD, John D. Honeycutt, PhD, Aaron Hong, PhD, James F. Hood Jr., Ronald M. Hopkins, PhD, Gary H. Hoppe, James C. Hoppe, Donald F. Hopps, Thomas G. Horgan, John R. Horn, MD, Lee W. Horn, Erwin William Hornung, PhD, Grant A Hosack, PhD, Fred L. Hotes, Dale Hotten, David L. Houghton, Leland Richmond House, MD, Loren J. Hov, Max M. Hovaten, Conrad Howan, George O. Howard, S Dale Howard, Stanley G. Howard, Walter Egner Howard, PhD, George F. Howe, PhD, John P. Howe, PhD, Ward W. Howland, Eric S Hoy, PhD, C. Hoyt, Chien H. Hsiao, PhD, Hani F. Hskander, Cynthia Hsu, Henry H. Hsu, J. Hsu, PhD, Robert Y. Hsu, PhD, Limin Hsueh, PhD, Kuang J. Huang, PhD, Harmon William Hubbard, PhD, Jason P. Hubbard, Wheeler L. Hubbell, MD, Cyril E. Huber, David Huchital, PhD, Stephen A. Hudson, David E. Hueseman, Hermann F. Huettemeyer, Peter Huetter II, Jim D. Huff, Thomas J. Huggett, Reginald C. Huggins, Robert A. Huggins, Michael D. Hugh, Larry C. Hughes, Melville P. Hughes, Roxanne C. Hughes, Paul Hull, Charles R. Hulquist, MD, Joseph W. Hultberg, Eric A. Hulteen, Brian Humphrey, John Humphrey, William E. Humphrey, PhD, Steven J. Hunn, George C. Hunt, John P. Hunt, PhD, William J. Hunter, James R. Hurd, Edward T. Hurley, Randy Hurst, Michael C. Husinko, Glen E. Huskey, PhD, Andrew Huszczuk, PhD, Lee Hutchins, Bruce T Hutchinson, E. S. Hutchison, Alan W. Hyatt, PhD, Eric R. Hyatt, PhD, Charles Hyde, E. Carl Hylin, PhD, Ralph Hylinski, MD, Umberto C. Iacuaniello, Samuel J. Iarg, MD, Gerald B. Iba, MD, Harold B. Igdaloff, Ronald A Iltis, PhD, Kenneth T. Ingham, Rodney H. Ingraham, PhD, Donald J. Inman, William Beveridge Innes, PhD, Kaoru Inouye, Dodge Irwin, Donald G. Iselin, Don L. Isenberg, PhD, Robert Isensee, PhD, Byron M. Ishkanian, George Ismael, Farouk T. Ismail, PhD, Guindy Mahmoud Ismail El, PhD, Larry Israel, Olga Ivanilova, PhD, King H. Ives, Lindsay C. Ives, Claude A. Jackman, Dale S. Jacknow, Bruce Jackson, Bruce Jackson, Kingbury Jackson, Robert A. Jackson, DVM, Warren B. Jackson, PhD, Sharon Jacobs, John E. Jacobsen, Albert H. Jacobson Jr., PhD, Fred J. Jacobson, Leslie J. Jacobson, Michael E. Jacobson, Kenneth D. Jacoby, Syed I. Jafri, H. S. James, William L. James, Everett Williams Jameson Jr., PhD, Robert W. Jamplis, MD, Kenneth S. Jancaitis, PhD, Larry Jang, PhD, Norman C. Janke, PhD, John C Jaquess, Robert Jastrow, PhD*, Fred J Jeffers, PhD, George W. Jeffs, David E. Jenkins, Jack D. Jenkins, Sean Jenkins, Richard G. Jenness, David Jennings, Edwin B. Jennings, Frederick A. Jennings, Pete D. Jennings, Gerard M. Jensen, PhD, Paul E. Jensen, Denzel Jenson, PhD, Norman E. Jentz, Herbert C. Jessen, James W. Jeter Jr., PhD, Nicolai A. Jigalin, Robert M. Jirgal, Zoenek Vaclav Jizba, PhD, Laurie A Johansen, Craig A. Johanson, MD, Niles W. Johanson, Karl Richard Johansson, PhD, Bertram G. Johnson, Bryce W. Johnson, PhD, Duane Johnson, PhD, Erik Johnson, PhD, G. E. Johnson, Gerald W. Johnson, PhD, H. A. Johnson, PhD, Horace Richard Johnson, PhD, Jim Johnson, Mark A. Johnson, Michael B. Johnson, P. Johnson, Raymond E. Johnson, Richard R. Johnson, Steven M. Johnson, MD, Theodore R. Johnson, Walter F. Johnson, William R. Johnson, PhD, William P. Johnson, George M. Johnston, William P. Johnston, PhD, Viliam Jonec, PhD, Rajinder S. Joneja, Alan B. Jones, Christopher H. Jones, Claris Eugene Jones Jr., PhD, Edgar J. Jones, Egerton G. Jones, Jeff Jones, Kyle B. Jones, Merrill Jones, PhD, Paul D. Jones, Robert E. Jones, Taylor B. Jones, PhD, Pete Jonghbloed, Peter E. Jonker, Charles Jordan, PhD, L. Jordan, Peter D. Joseph, PhD, Lyman C. Josephs II, Richard L. Joslin, Ronald F. Joyce, Macario G. Juanola, Robert H. Julian, Bruce B. Junor, George A. Jutila, MD, Charles E. Kaempen, PhD, Robert W. Kafka, PhD, Ron M Kagan, PhD, Richard L. Kahler, Calvin D. Kalbach, David
Kalil, Loren D. Kaller, PhD, Lisa V. Kalman, PhD, Martin D. Kamen, PhD*, Ivan J Kamezis, Andrew J. Kampe, Sarath C. Kanekal, PhD, Thomas Motomi Kaneko, PhD, Ho H. Kang, PhD, Thomas A. Kanneman, PhD, Paul Thomas Kantz, PhD, Mark S. Kapelke, Alvin A. Kaplan, Hillel R. Kaplan, Eugene J. Karandy, MD, Sid Karin, PhD, Arthur Karp, PhD, Victor N. Karpenko, Ronald A. Kasberger, Brian L Kash, Daniel E. Kass, Carl J. Kassabian, Jack T. Kassel, William S. Kather, Stanley L. Katten, Fred E. Kattuah, George Bernard Kauffman, PhD, Thomas Kauffman, Alvin Beryl Kaufman, Andrew J. Kay, David W. Kay, PhD, Robert Eugene Kay, PhD, Myron Kayton, PhD, Richard H. Keagy, DVM, John R. Keber, Patrick A. Keddington, James Richard Keddy, Ross C. Keeling Jr., Walter F. Kelber, William T. Kellermann Sr., Charles Thomas Kelley, PhD, Dennis Kelley, Kevin D. Kelley, Patrick R Kelly, Leroy J. Kemp, Robert E. Kendall, Martin William Kendig, PhD, Peter H. Kendrick, Tom A. Kenfield, Michael T. Kennedy, MD, John M. Kennel, PhD, Brian M. Kennelly, PhD, Clifford Eugene Kent, Kathleen M. Kenyon, DVM, Josef Kercso, Quentin A Kerns, Anna M. Kerrins, Andrew C Ketchum, Jesse F. Keville, John D. Keye Jr., MD, Tejbir S. Khanna, Simon A. Kheir, MD, Kathleen Kido-Savino, Karl E. Kienow, David C. Kilborn, Kent B. Killian, DVM, Jerry Killingstad, David E. Kim, MD, Lawrence K. Kim, MD, D. Kimball, Amon Kimeldorf, William C. Kimpel, MD, Kim S Kinderman, DVM, Chester L. King, Hartley Hugh King, PhD, Joseph E. King, William S. King, William L. Kingston, James W. Kinker, John J. R. Kinney, Gerald Lee Kinnison, PhD, John Kinzell, PhD, E. K. Kirchner, PhD, Tom P. Kirk, Carl S. Kirkconnell, PhD, Richard D. Kirkham, Harry H. Kishineff, Ernest Kiss, Terence M. Kite, PhD, Michael T. Kizer, Kit R Kjelstrom, Lorentz A. Kjoss, Nicholas Paul Klaas, PhD, Eugene G. Klein, Joseph Klein, Thomas Klein, Aurel Kleinerman, PhD, Robert E. Klenck, Walter Mark Kliewer, PhD, Steve J. Klimowski, Sidney Kline, Thomas J. Kling, Edwin E. Klingman, Gilbert E. Klingman, William Klint, Fred L. Kloepper, Edwin E. Klugman, PhD, Richard M. Klussman, MD, James W. Knapp, MD, Penelope K. Knapp, MD, Richard Hubert Knipe, PhD, Charles R. Knowles, Devin Knowles, Larry P. Knowles, Floyd Marion Knowlton, Stephen A. Kobayashi, MD, Robert D. Kochsiek, Bertram S. Koel, MD, Hans Koellner, Gina L. Koenig, Fred Koester, Robert L. Kogan, PhD, Robert Cy Koh, PhD, Joe B. Kohen, MD, George O. Kohler, PhD, R. J. Kolodziej, Kazimierz Kolwalski, PhD, Fred W. Koning, DVM, B. E. Kopaski, Rudolph William Kopf, John Kordosh, N. Korens, Harrison J. Kornfield, MD, John L. Kortenhoeven, Bart Kosko, PhD, Charles C. Kosky, Mark J. Koslicki, Edward Garrison Kost, PhD, Allen T. Koster, Nagy Hanna Kovacs, PhD, Sankar N. Koyal, PhD, Mitchell M. Kozinski, William R. Krafft, Peter W. Krag, PhD, Jerry Kraim, Roman J. Kramarsic, PhD, Gordon Kramer, Norbert E. Kramer, PhD, William H. Krebs, Ruth E. Kreiss, MD, William T. Kreiss, PhD, Richard M Kremer, PhD, William B. Krenz, Jeffrey B Kress, Karl Kretzinger, Joseph Z. Krezandski, PhD, E. Kriva, Joel Kronfeld, PhD, John Led Kropp, PhD, Loren L. Krueger*, Steven T. Krueger, Gai Krupenkin, E. C. Krupp, PhD, Harvey A. Krygier, MD, Mitsuru Kubota, PhD, Alexander Kucher, Don R. Kuehn, PhD, Moira Kuhl, Frank I. Kuklinski, Eugene M. Kulesza, Kenneth W. Kummerfeld, Joseph Kunc, PhD, Guy Kuncir, Willard D. Kunz, DVM, Peter Kurtz, PhD, Alan J Kushnir, PhD, Paul Kutler, PhD, Leon J. Kutner, PhD, Timothy La Farge, PhD, James La Fleur, Mitchell J. LaBuda, PhD, Leonard L. Lacaze, Kurt D. Ladendorf, Franklin Laemmlen, PhD, Eugene C. Laford, PhD, Bruce Lagasse, Thomas W. LaGrelius, MD, Milton Laikin, Charles L Laird II, Cleve Watrous Laird, PhD, John W. Lake, Albert L. Lamarre, Michael A Lambert, PhD, Ron R. Lambert, Edward W. Lambing Jr., Robert A. Lame, H. D. Landahl, PhD, Richard Leon Lander, PhD, William K. Lander, Tom F Landers, William Charles Landgraf, PhD, Frank L. Landon, Charles S. Landram, PhD, Archie Landry, William G. Landry, F. Lane, Darrell W. Lang, MD, Gregory A. Langan, Thomas H. Lange, PhD, Rolf H. Langland, PhD, Philip G. Langley, PhD, Ward J. Lantier, George R. LaPerle, Gary G. Lapid, MD, Kurt A. Larcher, Lisa W. Larios, Norbert D. Larky, David F Larochelle, MD, Bruce E. Larock, PhD, Henry Larrucea, David L. Larsen, William E. Larsen, Harry T. Larson, Larry J Larson, MD, Russell C. Larson, Roderick M. Lashelle, DVM, Bill Lee Lasley, PhD, Jason Lau, James Bishop Laudenslager, PhD, Garry E. Laughlin, James W. Laughlin, James H. Laughon, Jim Lauria, Archibald M. Laurie, Michael J. Lavallee, Thomas E. Lavenda, Charles E. Law, MD, Bill Lawler, John John Lawless Jr., PhD, William H. Lawrence, Edward B. Lawson, Bill R. Lawver, Charles E. Layne, Grant H. Layton, Thomas W. Layton, PhD, Gerry V. Lazzareschi, MD, Julie Leahy, William F. Leahy, PhD, David F. Leake, William D. Leake, James B. Lear, Joseph P. Leaser, MD, Paul Matthew Leavy, Joseph E. Ledbetter, PhD, Robert S. Ledendecker, Bryan D. Lee, Bum S. Lee, PhD, Kai Y. Lee, Keun W. Lee, Long Chi Lee, PhD, Min L Lee, PhD, Paul S Lee, PhD, Philip R. Lee, Carl B. Leedy, Marjorie B. Leerabhandh, PhD, Robert H. Leerhoff, Franklin E. Lees, Harry A. Leffingwell, Victor E. Leftwich, Walter Lehman, William C. Lehman, MD, Robert F. Lehnen, Edward T. Leidigh, Al G. Leiga, PhD, Jerry S. Leininger, Robert B. Leinster, Larry G. Leiske, MD, George W. Leisz, Ronald J. Lejman, Dan LeMay, Vernon L. Leming, Eric Lemke, Don H. Lenker, John Lenora, PhD*, Billy K. Lenser, MD, Robert C. Lentzner, MD, Richard D. Leonard, Peter C. LePort, MD, Robert L. Lessley, James L. Lessman, Max M. Lester Jr., Robert W. Lester, Thuston C. LeVay, Lamberto A. Leveriza, Walter Frederick Leverton, PhD, Robert Ernest Le Levier, PhD, Howard Bernard Levine, PhD, Jeff E Levinger, Roger E. Levoy, DVM, J. V. Levy, PhD, Hal Lewis, PhD, William P. Lewis, PhD, Huilin Li, PhD, Shing T. Li, PhD, Thomas T. Liao, Frank Licha, Donald K. Lidster, MD, Kap Lieu, Michael L. Lightstone, PhD, Wayne P. Lill Jr., Ray O. Linaweaver, Wilton Howard Lind, Kim R. Lindbery, Robert O. Lindblom, PhD, Charles Alexander Lindley, PhD, Robert R. Lindner, Peter F. Lindquist, PhD, Laurence Lindsay, Robert Lindstrom, Leo C. Linesch, John J Linker, Paul H. Linstrom, Darrell Linthacum, PhD, Jerome L. Lipin, MD, Arthur L. Lippman, MD, Arthur C. Litheredge, W. M. Liu, PhD, Josep G. Llaurado, MD, Verl B. Lobb, Fred P. Lobban, Timothy A. Lockwood, PhD, Donald O. Lohr, Lewis S. Lohr, Gabriel G. Lombardi, PhD, Robert Ahlberg Loney, PhD, Howard F. Long, MD, James D Long, Neville S. Long, Paul Alan Longwell, PhD, Clay A. Loomis, Hendricus G. Loos, PhD, David A. Lorenzen, Robert S. Lorusso, Brad M. Losey, Frank H. Lott, Stuart Loucks, Michael E. Lovejoy, C. James Lovelace, PhD, Judith K. Lowe, MD, Alvin Lowi Jr., PhD, John Kuew Hsiung Lu, PhD, Paul S. Lu, Michael D. Lubin, PhD, Anthony G. Lubowe, PhD, Raymond K. Luci, Samuel R. Lucia, Denise G Luckhurst, H. Ludwig, Raymond J. Lukens, PhD, William Watt Lumsden, PhD*, Walter F. Lundin, Jorgen V. Lunding, Theodore R. Lundquist, PhD, Pamela G. Lung, Owen Raynal Lunt, PhD, Harold Richard Luxenberg, PhD, Warren M. Lydecker, Dennis Lynch, Laura M Lynne, Kevin G. Lyons, Richard G Lyons, Robert S. Lyss, MD, Robert S. MacAlister, Mike S. Macartney, Howard Maccabee, PhD, Alexander Daniel MacDonald, PhD, David V. MacDonald, John W. Mace, MD, Mario A. Machicao, John D. Mack, Donald S. Macko, PhD, John C. Maclay, Lee M. Maclean, Edward H. Macomber, Duane E. Maddux, Joseph T. Maddux, A. Madison, Akhilesh Maewal, PhD, Frank Maga, John L. Magee*, Michael W. Magee, Hans F. Mager, Edward Thomas Maggio, PhD, Tom Alan Magness, PhD, Robert A. Maier, Walter P. Maiersperger*, Douglas J. Malewicki, Michael A. Malgeri, Jim G Malik, PhD, Calvin Malinka, William Robert Mallett, PhD, Joseph D. Malley, PhD, Albert J. Mallinckrodt, PhD, Kenneth Long Maloney, PhD, George E. Maloof, MD, Neil A. Malpiede, Enrico R. Manaay, Nikola A. Manchev, Isaak Mandelbaum, Nelson L. Mandley, Kent M. Mangold, Anna M. Manley, C. David Mann, George L. Mann, Nancy Robbins Mann, PhD, Philip Mannes, Scheana Mannes, Robert W. Mannon, PhD, William H. Mannon,
James Mansdorfer, Greayer Mansfield-Jones, PhD, A. Marasco, Herbert D Marbach, PhD, George Raymond Marcellino, PhD, Michael Marchese, Stephen C. Marciniec, William C. Marconi, Carol Silber Marcus, PhD, A. J. Mardinly, PhD, Alan Mare, MD, Elwin Marg, PhD, Brian Maridon, Mike J. Marienthal, Michael J. Marinak, William P. Markling, Jack Marling, PhD, Wilbur Joseph Marner, PhD, Patrick M. Maroney, Don Marquis, Marilyn A. Marquis, PhD, Henry L. Marschall, Sullivan Samuel Marsden, PhD, David E. Marshburn, Lorenzo I. Marte, Richard G. Martella, Emil L. Martin, Lincoln A. Martin, Ralph F. Martin, Rebecca Denise Martin, Richard E. Martin, Rodney J. Martin, Stanley Buel Martin, Vurden T. Martin, Ernest A. Martinelli, PhD, Joseph Maserjian, PhD, Bijan R. Mashouf, MD, Arthur J Mason, George D Mason, Paul S. Masser, PhD, Alberto G. Masso, PhD, Edgar A. Mastin, PhD, Herbert Franz Matare, PhD, Vincent A. Matera, MD, Charles R. Mathews, Eckart Mathias, Harold C. Mathis, Ronald F. Mathis, PhD, Gene L. Matranga, Kyoko Matsuda, PhD, Jacob P. Matthews, Bill B. May, PhD, Edward H. Mayer, German R. Mayer, David F. Maynard, PhD, G. Mazis, Stephen Albert Mazza, Richard L. McArthy, David M. McCann, MD, William J. McCarter, Edward W. McCauley, PhD, Jon McChesney, PhD, Chester McCloskey, PhD, David L. McClure, R. J. McClure, William Owen McClure, PhD, John M. McCluskey, MD, John V. McColligan, Billy Murray McCormac, PhD, Philip Thomas McCormick, PhD, Thomas E. McCown, Herbert I. McCoy, MD, Ray S. McCoy, Louis Ralph McCreight, Thomas G. McCreless, PhD, James B. McCrumb, Sandra L. McDougald, Barry R. McElmurry, William C. McFadden, Malcolm M. McGawn, William H. McGlasson, Jack F. McGouldrick, Richard J. McGovern, Thomas McGuinness, John P. McGuire, Lawrence McHargue, PhD, Vernon J. McKale, Roger E. McKarus, Charles G. McKay, William Dean McKee, PhD, Donald J. McKenzie, Joe A. McKenzie, William K. McKim, Jerry McKnight, Stephen M. McKown, Charles A. McLean, Steven McLean, Debra McMahan, John D. McMahon, Lester R. McNall, PhD, Gregory R. McNeil, Michael J. McNutt, PhD, Daniel E McPherson Jr., L. D. McQueen, PhD, Cyril M. McRae, Edgar R. McRae, Gerard J. McVicker, Homer N. Mead, Joseph Meade, Robert C. Meaders, Beverly Meador, Richard A. Meador, Herbert J. Meany, M. G. Mefferd, Merlin Meisner, Stanley Meizel, PhD, Michael A Melanson, Gloria Melara, PhD, Robert Frederick Meldav, Rodney Melgard, Stanley C. Mellin, Alex S. Meloy, Marvin E. Melton, Bobby J. Melvin, Anthony S Memeo, Xian-Qin Meng, MD, Steven M. Menkus, William F. Menta, Alan C. Merchant, Leo Mercy, Paul M. Merifield, PhD, Vincent C. Merlin, John Lafayette Merriam, Marshal F. Merriam, PhD, George B. Merrick, Ronald E. Merrill, PhD, William R. Merrill, Seymour Merrin, PhD, Ross A. Merritt, Arthur L. Messinger, MD, Robert Meyearis, Harold F. Meyer, Jewell L. Meyer, Matthew D. Meyer, Rudolf X. Meyer, PhD, Steven J. Meyerhofer, Charles J. Meyers Jr., Richard E. Meyers, Gerald James Miatech, PhD, E Don Michael, Robert C. Michael, Lawrence A. Michel, Lloyd R. Michels, PhD, Michael A. Michelson, Scott J. Mighell, Daniel F. Mika, Nagib T. Mikhael, PhD, Duane Soren Mikkelsen, PhD, Paul G. Mikolaj, PhD, Gerald A. Miles, Melvin H Miles, PhD, Ralph Franley Miles, PhD, John B. Millard, PhD, Jose B. Millares, Alan D. Miller, PhD, Allan S. Miller, PhD, C. Miller, Cecil Miller, PhD, Daryl D. Miller, Dick Miller, PhD, George Miller, H. L. Miller, James Avery Miller, PhD, John S. Miller, Kenneth J. Miller, Lawrence S Miller, Robert L. Miller, Sol Miller, PhD, Stanley Leo Miller, Timothy Miller, Wilson N. Miller, Le Edward Millet, PhD, Charles E. Millett, Robert C. Mills, George P. Milton, Thomas Mincer, PhD, Robert E. Minear, Ronald L. Miner, Susie M. Ming, David R. Minor, MD, Tom L. Mintun, John M. Mintz, PhD, Srecko Mirko Mircetich, PhD, Harold Mirels, PhD, Arjang K. Miremadi, MD, Mohammad R. Mirseyedi, Theodore C. Mitchell, Arup P. Mitra, Edward Mittleman, MD, K. L. Moazed, PhD, Julie A. Mobley, Ken L Moeckel, Randy A. Moehnke, Allen A. Moff, John K. Moffitt, John George Mohler, MD, Daniel E. Mohn, Faramarz Mohtadi, MD, George E. Mohun, MD, Niculae T. Moisidis, PhD, Rogelio A. Molina, Albert James Moll, PhD, John L. Moll, PhD, Terrence V. Molloy, John P Monahan, Robert E. Moncrieff, MD, Carl L. Monismith, Loren Monroe Jr., Myles P. Monroe, Ernesto M Monteiro, Theodore Ashton Montgomery, MD, Nelson Montoya, Henry L. Moody, Dale W Mooney, Rodney R. Moore, Michael Morcos, William B. Moreland, Richard Leo Moretti, PhD, Karl G. Morey, Dean R. Morford, Robert W. Morford, Donald Earle Morgan, PhD, Leon Frank Morgan, Lucian L. Morgan, Thomas Kenneth Morgan, PhD, Victor G. Morgen, Michael Moroso, Philip J. Morrill, Paul E. Morris, MD, Jeffrey A. Morrish, Allen D. Morrison, Richard J. Morrissey, Dan Morrow, Brad G. Morse, Frances Morse, George A. Morse, Dennis B. Morton, John Robert Morton, PhD, Paul K. Morton, Ray S. Morton, H. David Mosier, MD, Malcolm Mossman, Ronald J. Mosso, Gail F. Moulton Jr., Paul Mount II, Richard C. Much, Jerome Robert Mueller, William L. Mueller, Sig Muessig, PhD, Debasish Mukherjee, PhD, Butch Mulcahey, Fred R. Mulker, Kenneth I. Mullen, L. Frederic Muller, Ragnwald Muller, John F. Mulligan, Kary B Mullis, PhD, Mark B. Mullonbach, T. Munasinge, PhD, James F. Mundy, David V. Mungcal, MD, Albert G. Munson, PhD, Emil M. Murad, Alexander James Murphy, PhD, Emmett J. Murphy, Gary L. Murphy, Sean Murphy, PhD, William J Murphy, PhD, Bruce Murray, Frank Murray, PhD, Richard L. Murray, Albert F. Myers, Dale D. Myers, Willard G. Myers, PhD, Donald L. Mykkanen, PhD, Harry E. Nagle, Kenneth A. Nagy, PhD, Yervant M. Nahabedian, Yathi Naidu, PhD, Takuro S. Nakae, Glenn M. Nakaguchi, Dennis B. Nakamoto, M. Nance, A. Naselow, PhD, J. Greg Nash, PhD, Merlin Neff Jr., MD, Thomas C. Nehrbas, Donald G. Nelson, Lorin M. Nelson, Richard Douglas Nelson, PhD, Robert L. Nelson, Victor Nelson, Bijan Nemati, PhD, Bruce H. Nesbit, Harold Neufeld, MD, John B Neuman, Sylvia M. Neumann, DVM, Temple W. Neumann, Donald E. Neuschwander, Frank M. Nevarez, James Ryan Neville, PhD, Richard E Newell, Stanley D. Newell, John M. Newey, Phil W. Newman, Bernard D. Newsom, PhD, H. Newsom, PhD, Kerwin Ng, Thuan V. Nguyen, PhD, D Paul Nibarger, Edward S. Nicholls, MD, Jack C. Nichols, MD, Mark E. Nichols, Richard A. Nichols, PhD, Richard E. Nicholson, MD, Peter A Nick, Mathew L. Nickels, MD, Marvin L. Nicola, MD, Albert H. Niden, MD, Tom F. Niedzialek, R. Nieffenegger, Gilbert O. Nielsen, Kurt E Nielsen, Mark Niemiec, Rodulfo C. Niere, William A Nierenberg, PhD*, Joseph A. Nieroski, Edwawrd A. Nieto, Danta L. Nieva, James E. Nightingale, Jim B. Nile, George Niles, Soottid Nimitsilpa, Donald A. Nirschl, Kazunori Nishioka, Gilbert A. Nixon, Michael L. Noel, James C. Nofziger, PhD, Richard Nolthenius, PhD, Eugene L. Nooker, Jack D. Norberg, H. A. Noring, Brent C. Norman, MD, John L. Norris, Tharold E. Northup, Ferdinard J. Nowak, Wesley Raymond Nowell, PhD, Stanley J. Nowicki, Leonard James Nugent, PhD, Maurice Joseph Nugent Jr., PhD, Erwin R. Null, Robert B. Nungester, James K. Nunn, Amos M. Nur, PhD, Joseph A. Nussbaum, George A. Nyamekye, PhD, Hubert J. Nyser, Michael Nystrom, Dale O'Brien, MD, Bernard J. O'Loughlin, PhD, Ryan D. O'Neal, Donald E. O'Neill, Harry Alvin Oberhelman, Theodore M. Oberlander, PhD, Rafael H. Obregon, Fabrizio Oddone, Arlo L. Oden*, Dominick Odorizzi, Michal Odyniec, PhD, John D. Oeltman, Jacob J. Offenberger, MD, Naomi Neil Ogimachi, PhD, H. M. Ogle, J. Ogren, PhD, Joon C. Oh, Franklin T. Ohgi, Kurt N. Ohlinger, PhD, Kent A. Ohlson, William Ohm, Arthur F. Okuno, Fred B. Oldham, MD, Arnold N. Oldre, MD, Edward A. Oleata, Edward Eugene Oliphant, PhD, Donald B. Oliver, PhD, Roy R. Oliver, E. Jerry Oliveras, Kenneth L. Olivier, PhD, Sterling B Olsen, Carl Olson, Jan B. Olson, Larry Olson, Kevin D. Olwell, PhD, Rosalie Omahony, PhD, Willard D. Ommert, DVM, Anatoli Onopchenko, PhD, Lee B. Opatowsky, PhD, Philip H. Oppenheim, MD, William L. Oppenheim, John J. Oram, PhD, Rolf O. Orchard, Fernando Ore, PhD, David R. Orfant, Mahmoud M. Oriqat, Cornel G. Ormsby, Harold A. Orndorff, Hans I. Orup, MD, Emil A. Osberg, James Osborn,
M. Osborn, Bert Osen, James E. Oslund, James R. Oster, MD, Al B. Osterhues, Theodore O. Osucha, Douglas K. Osugi, Arnold Otchin, Michael A Otnisky, Gary M. Otremba, Wayne Robert Ott, PhD, William M. Otto, Oswald L. Ottolia, John W. Overall Jr., Dennis Owen, Scott A. Owen, Thomas W. Owens, Kazimiera J L Paciorek, PhD, Lorenzo M. Padilla, Jeffry Padin, PhD, Seaver T. Page, MD, Coburn Robbins Painter, Thomas Palmer, Patrick E. Pandolfi, Sergio R. Panunzio, PhD, Robert C. Paoluccio, Charles Herach Papas, PhD, Michael L. Pappas, Shashikant V. Parikh, Edward Parilis, PhD, Calvin Alfred Parker, PhD, David W. Parker, Dennis L. Parker, Kenneth D. Parker, Norman F. Parker, PhD, Theodore C. Parker, Robert M Parkhurst, Malcolm F Parkman, Merton B. Parlier, Lowell Carr Parode, Christopher M. Parry, PhD, Michael L Parsons, PhD, Chester R. Partridge, Stan P. Parvanian, Angelo A. Pastorino, James M. Paterson, PhD, Charles M. Patsch, Everett R. Patten, Gaylord Penrod Patten, PhD, Alec M. Patterson, Brenda J. Patterson, Richard M. Patton, James W. Paul, Raymond L. Paulson, Ferene F. Pavlics, Eleftherios B. Pavlis, Hagai Payes, Dalian V. Payne, James Payne, PhD, Andy Peabody, David N. Peacock, PhD, Robert T. Peacock, Gerald F. Pearce, John Pearson, Gerald Pease, Robert A. Pease, Deborah Kerwin Peck, Douglas P. Pedersen, Richard A. Pedersen, Louis E. Pelfini, David Gerard Pelka, PhD, W. S. Penn Jr., PhD, Paul H. Pennypacker, MD, Richard S. Penska, Jeffery Penta, Allen P. Penton, Linda H. Pequegnat, PhD, Thomas M. Perch, Irma T. Pereira, Robert V. Peringer, Arthur S. Perkins, James Jerome Perrcault, Gerald M. Perry, George Persky, PhD, Alois Peter Jr., Marvin Arthur Peters, PhD, Ralph H. Peters, Norman W. Petersen, Patricia J. Petersen, Arthur W. Peterson, Donald J. Peterson, Gary Lee Peterson, PhD, Glenn R. Peterson, Jack E. Peterson, PhD, James D. Peterson, Victor Lowell Peterson, Thomas G. Petrulas, Ray H. Pettit, PhD, Ronald W. Petzoldt, PhD, Bernard L. Pfefer, R. Fred Pfost, PhD, Robert F. Phalen, PhD, Debra Phelps, Lloyd Lewis Philipson, PhD, John P. Phillips, MD, Ronald T. Piccirillo, MD, Benjamin M. Picetti, MD, William Pickett, John H. Pickrell, Bill D. Pierce, PhD, Matthew Lee Pierce, PhD, Terence M. Pierce, Vincent Joseph Pileggi, PhD, Laurence Oscar Pilgeram, PhD, Kurt F. Pilgram, Irwin J. Pincus, MD, Edmund Pinney, PhD, Raymond G. Pinson, Robert G. Piper, Bernard Wallace Pipkin, PhD, Jesse E Pipkin, Janet C. Piskor, Earl L. Pitkin, Raluca M. Pitts, Michael A. Plakosh, Robert V. Plank, Stephen L. Plett, Joseph S. Plunkett, Gregory E. Polito, MD, Myron Pollycove, MD, Glen D. Polzin, Robert L. Pons, James B. Ponzo, Richard J. Porazynski, David Dixon Porter, MD, Fred C. Porter, Robert Potosnak, Charle E. Pound, Robert D. Pounds, M. L. Powell, James P. Power, Jack Pratt, Gerald O. Priebe, Robert Clay Prim II, PhD, George B. Primbs, MD, Robert K. Prince, David Prinzing, Lewis W. Pritchett, Winston H. Probert, Richard James Proctor, Thomas Proctor, J. Proffitt, John R. Prosek, Brian S. Prosser, Thomas Prossima Jr., Jerry A. Pruett, Vernon L. Pruett, Fernand H. Prussing, MD, Kenneth E. Pruzinsky, Teodor C. Przymusinski, PhD, Timothy G. Psomas, Laurie D. Publicover, MD, Leamon T. Pulley, PhD, Bruce H. Purcell, Everett W. Purcell, Robert G. Purington, Jennifer D. Pursley, DVM, Thankamama J. Puthiaparampil, MD, Ramon S. Quesada, MD, Florentino V. Quiaot, John M. Quiel, Louis C. Raburn, Donald Rado, Robert W. Ragen Jr., Peter A Ragusa, James K. Rainforth, James W. Raitt, MD, James A. Ramenofsky, MD, Apolinar Z. Ramiro, Simon Ramo, PhD, Roy E. Ramseier, Lawrence Dewey Ramspott, PhD, Shahida I. Rana, James Rancourt, PhD, Greenfield A. Randall, P. Randall, Thomas J. Rankin, Henry Rapoport, PhD, Daren H. Raskin, Miriam Rasky, Ned S. Rasor, PhD, Howard E. Rast Jr., PhD, Tom C. Rath, Egan J. Rattin, Michael S. Ratway, Stephen Rawlinson, Monte E. Ray, Everett L. Raymond, Leonard A. Rea, Robert G Read, Richard L. Reason, Douglas W. Reavie, George J. Rebane, PhD, Jose G. Rebaya, Andreas Buchwald Rechnitzer, PhD, John G. Reddan II, Damoder P. Reddy, PhD, Allan G. Redeker, MD, Barry Reder, David A. Reed Jr., Lester R. Reekers, Joe W. Reese, Harold G. Reeser, Donald F. Reeves, Richard G. Reeves, Steven A. Regis, Charles J. Reich, Kenneth Brooks Reid, PhD, Kyrk D. Reid, Jeff Reimche, Richard D. Rein, Fred W. Reinhart, Mark B. Reinhold, PhD, Marlin E. Remley, PhD, Charles R. Rendall, Daniel F. Renke, Nicholas A. Renzetti, PhD, Josef W. Repsch, Robert Walter Rex, PhD, Arthur A. Reyes, PhD, Diana C. Reyes, Armond G. Rheault, Dennis A. Rhyne, Gary R. Rice, Richard Rice, PhD, Neal A. Richardson, PhD, Ispoone Richlin, PhD, Hannes H. Richter, Harry G. Richter, Philip J. Richter, Corwin Lloyd Rickard, PhD, Joan D. Rickard, Douglas W. Ricks, PhD, R. J. Riddell, PhD, Richard R. Riddell, MD, Michael Riddiford, Fred M. Riddle, John L. Ridell, Adolphus A. Riewe, James W. Riggs, PhD, George P. Rigsby, PhD, G. N. Riley, Gary T. Riley, Lyrad Riley, John A. Rinek, Thomas A Ring, Robert Ringering, MD, Keith Riordan, Richard L. Ripley, David Ririe, PhD, Martin W. Ritchie, PhD, Arnold P. Ritter, Jack B. Ritter, Robert Brown Ritter, Manuel S. Rivas, R. A. Rivas, James E. Robbins, Roy L. Roberson, Stephen F. Roberts, Donad B. Robertson, Jim D. Robertson, Karen S. Robinson, Richard C. Robinson, Robert B. Roche, Adam Rocke, Leon H. Rockwell, PhD, James W. Rodde, Jonathan P. Rode, PhD, Fredrich H. Rodenbaugh, MD, Bertram J. Rodgers Jr., Glenard W. Rodgers, Anthony F. Rodrigues, D. R. Rogers, Dan V. Rogers, Carl A. Rohde, Gerhard Rohringer, PhD, Jack W. Rolston, Ephraim Romesberg, Wendell Hofma Rooks, Steven D. Root, Eugene John Rosa, PhD, Allan B. Rose, Dennis G. Rose, Eric C. Roseen, Alan Rosen, PhD, Dan Yale Rosenberg, Steven Loren Rosenberg, PhD, Donald Edwin Rosenheim, Jack W. Rosenthal, Kermit E. Rosenthal, Rollie D. Rosete, MD, Jonathan P. Rosman, MD, Stephen Ross, MD, Suzi Ross, Ted E. Ross Jr., William E. Ross, Mario E. Rossi, A. David Rossin, PhD, Bryant William Rossiter, PhD, Thomas J. Rosten, J. Paul Roston, Adolph Peter Roszkowski, PhD, Ariel A. Roth, PhD, Gerald S. Rothman, MD, Stan A. Rothwell, William Stanley Rothwell, PhD, Nicholas Rott, PhD, Jerome A. Rotter, MD, James E. Roulstone, James M. Rowe, PhD, William R. Rowe, Leroy H. Rowley, George M. Roy, David C. Royer, G. Roysdon, John Rozenbergs, PhD, Balazs F. Rozsnyai, PhD, Leonard Rubenstein, Allen G. Rubin, Benjamin D. Rubin, MD, Efim S. Rudin, Gerard Rudisin, John V. Rudy, Thomas P. Rudy, PhD, W. Ruehle, Edward Rugel, Daniel Ruhkala, Howell Irwin Runion, PhD, Richard A. Runkel, PhD, Jack E. Runnels, Robert C. Rupert, B. Rush, PhD, Andrew Russell, Edmund L. Russell, Lewis B. Russell, Claude Rust, PhD, Paul G. Ruud, PhD, Ed J. Ruzak, Alan S. Ryall, PhD, Philip L. Ryall, Bill Chatten Ryan, PhD, Daberath Ryan, Joe Ryan, PhD, Kevin M. Ryan, Patrick Ryan, Elliott Ryder, PhD, Kathleen Rygiel, Patrick Saatzer, PhD, Frank L. Sabatino, Joseph D. Sabella, MD, William W. Sable, Frank C Sacco, Marvin H Sachse, Edgar Albert Sack, PhD, B. Sadri, Frederick M. Sagabiel, Richard A. Sager, William F. Sager, Majid Saghafi, PhD, Kanwar V. Sain, Nirmal S. Sajjan, Roy T. Sakamoto, Eugene Salamin, Robert E. Salfi, PhD, Mikal Endre Saltveit, PhD, Paul K. Salzman, PhD, Larry Sample, Grobert D. Sanborn, William C. Sanborn, Jay C. Sandberg, Ray O. Sandberg, Richard P. Sandell, Thomas L. Sanders Jr., Burton B. Sandiford, James K. Sandin, Steven D. Sandkohl, Marvin M. Sando, MD, James S. Sands, MD, Enrique Sanqui, George T. Santamaria, Henry E. Santana, Tom Santillan, Kenneth W. Sapp, A. M. Sam Sarem, PhD, Greg Sarkisian, Raymond Edmund Sarwinski, PhD, Melvin W. Sasse, J. Satko, Richard S. Satkowski, Hugh M. Satterlee, PhD, Tim Saunders, Walt Saunders, Robert E. Saute, PhD, Basil V. Savoy, Austin R. Sawvell, MD, Frederick George Sawyer, PhD, Charles W. Sayles, PhD, Charles R. Saylor, James Scala, PhD, Carolyn A. Scarbrough, Michael P. Scarbrough, Michael P. Scardera, Lido Scardigli, Lawrence A Schaal, Jeffrey Schaffer, Richard C. Schappert, Edward M. Schaschl, John F. Schatz, PhD, George E. Schauf, MD, Donald E. Scheer, David H. Scheffey, Paul Otto Sch
eibe, PhD, Thomas J. Scheil, Perry Arron Scheinok, PhD, Michael W. Schell, Don Van Schenck, MD, Clifton S. Schermerhorn, MD, Don Ralph Scheuch, PhD, Paul G. Scheuerman, Stanley J. Scheurman, MD, Mark Schiller, MD, Ted M. Schiller, Guenter Martin Schindler, PhD, Rudolf A. Schindler, Richard H. Schippers, Hassel C. Schjelderup, PhD, Wilbert H. Schlimmeyer, Evert Irving Schlinger, PhD, Erika M. Schlueter, PhD, John H. Schmedel, Francis R. Schmid, Rudi Schmid, PhD, Alfred C. Schmidt, John W. Schmidt, Kurt C. Schmidt, Richard L. Schmittel, Henry A. Schneider, George L. Schofield Jr., PhD, Kurt A. Scholz, Martin R. Schotzberger, Robert Schrader, Klaus G. Schroeder, PhD, Ed J. Schryver, Donald A Schuder, Adolph T. Schulbach, Daniel Herman Schulte, PhD, Robert K. Schultz, PhD, Theodore C. Schultze, Roger W. Schumacher, Joseph F. Schuman, Peter T. Schuyler, Samuel G. Schwab, Benny R Schwach, Steven C. Schwacofer, Alan B. Schwartz, MD, Gary W. Schwede, PhD, Raymond L. Schwinn, MD, Donald R. Scifres, PhD, Kevin M. Scoggin, DVM, Richard A Scollay, Deborah J. Scott, PhD, Elizabeth Scott, MD, Franklin Robert Scott, PhD, Harrison S. Scott, John F. Scott, Paul Scribner, D. G. Scruggs, Jeffrey Scudder, Christopher L. Seaman, PhD, W. H. Seaman, Paul A. Sease, Robert L. Seat, Bruce E. Seaton, Randall J. Seaver, Leslie I. Sechler, MD, Donald B. Sedgley, Lidia A Seebeck, Michael Seebeck, Michael L. Seely, PhD, Erwin Seibel, PhD, Edward W. Seigmund, Glenn A. Sels, John R. Selvage, N. T. Selvey, Jospeh Semak, Frederick D. Sena, George W. Sening, James C. Senn, Oscar W. Sepp, Alexander Sesonske, PhD, John D. Severns, Bradley E. Severson, Ordean G. Severud, Archie F. Sexton, James W. Shaffer, Patricia Marie Shaffer, PhD, Jayendra A. Shah, MD, Arsen A. Shahnazarian, Lloyd Stowell Shapley, PhD, Gary Duane Sharp, PhD, Clifford A. Sharpe, Roland L. Sharpe, Clay Marcus Sharts, PhD, Black Shaw, MD, Ian Shaw, Reece F. Shaw, Warren D. Shaw, I. D. Shaylor-Billings, Dennis Shea, Richard Shearer, George F. Sheets, Zubair A. Sheikh, Kent L. Shepherd, John L. Sheport, David A. Sheppard, Russell Sherman, Dalton E. Sherwood, N Thomas Sherwood, PhD, Wilbert Lee Shevel, PhD, George L. Shillinger, Kaz K. Shintaku, Calvin Shipbaugh, PhD, Michael L. Shira, Ralph E. Shirley, Walter W Shirley, Arthur W. Shively, Gary Shoemaker, PhD, Robert S. Shoemaker, Oliver B. Sholders, John J. Shore II, Michael A. Short, PhD, Christopher R. Shubeck, Rex Hawkins Shudde, PhD, Patrick James Shuler, PhD, Dinah O. Shumway, Douglas C. Shumway, Sidney G. Shutt, Raymond E. Sickler, Kurt Sickles, John P. Siegel, MD, Joseph A. Siegel, MD, William Siegfried, Steven M. Siegwein, Brent C. Siemer, Hans R. Sifrig, James Ernest Siggins, PhD, Paul L. Sigwart, Michael Silbergh, Henry W. Silk, Robert T. Silliman, Armando B. Silva, Daniel D. Silva, Gregory P. Silver, Herbert Philip Silverman, PhD, Jacob Silverman, PhD, Herschel W. Silverstone, Craig A. Silvey, William J. Simek, P. John Simic, MD, Michael N. Simidjian, Javid J. Siminou, E. Lee Simmons, MD, Ira B. Simmons, Keith Simmons, William W. Simmons, PhD, Edgar Simons, William H Simons, Jack Simonton, Donald C. Simpson, Gordon G. Sinclair, John P Sinek, PhD, Alfredo Hua Sing, PhD, Iqbal Singh, MD, Vernon Leroy Singleton, PhD, Juscelino M. Siongco, Harold T. Sipe, William D. Siuru, PhD, Stanley L. Sizeler, MD, Fritiof S. Sjostrand, PhD, Paul S. Skager, Sidney E. Skarin, PhD, Arlie D. Skelton, Robert E. Skelton, PhD, George I. Skoda, Todd Patrick Slavik, Bernard G. Slavin, PhD, Marina Slepak, PhD, Mikhail E. Slepak, PhD, Richard Slocum, PhD, Robert Gordon Smalley, PhD, Gary Smart, Ronald T. Smedberg, Helen M. Smedbery, Rick G. Smelser, Charlee Smith, Dana L. Smith, Donald R. Smith, PhD, Donald C. Smith, DVM, Donald A. Smith, Donna E. Smith, MD, Eric Smith, Gary Smith, MD, Geoffrey R. Smith, DVM, James R.E. Smith, Jeff Smith, John R Smith, PhD, M. R. Smith, PhD, Michael J. Smith, PhD, S. Clarke Smith, MD, Walter J. Smith, Eileen Smithers, Peter Smits, Neil R. Smoots, Walter L Snell, John P Snook, William Rossenbrook Snow, PhD, Donald Philip Snowden, PhD, Donald R. Snyder, Stephen J. Snyder, Richard C. Soderholm, James R. Soderman, R. T. Soledberg, Bertram C. Solomon, MD, Ronald C. Sommerfield, John R. Sondeno, Harold S. Song, MD, Loren R. Sorensen, Frank S. Sorrentino, MD, Marco J. Sortillon, Everett R. Southam, PhD, Charles L. Spaegel, Michael E. Spaeth, PhD, William L. Sparks, Russell T. Spears, MD, Aaron B. Speirs, Lawrence C. Spencer, Pierrepont E. Sperry Jr., Arlo J. Spiess, Robert Joseph Spinrad, PhD, John Robert Spreiter, PhD, Rodger W. Spriggs, George S. Springer, PhD, Gerard J. Sprokel, PhD, James P. Srebro, Pierre St. Amand, PhD, David St. Armand, Harold Keith Stager, Kenneth E. Stager, PhD, Kim W Stahnke, Mark A. Stalzer, PhD, Anthony C. Stancik, Clarence H. Stanley, Rosemarie Stanton, Scott R. Stanton, Timothy N. Stanton, Chauncey Starr, PhD, Darrel W. Starr, Edward R. Starr, MD, Mike Starzer, Raymond Stata, PhD, Harrison L. Staub, John F. Steel, MD, Arnold Edward Steele, Thomas C. Steele, Albert J. Stefan, Edward M. Steffani, Richard J. Stegemeier, Michael Steger, Howard Steinberg, PhD, Morris Albert Steinberg, PhD, Richard L. Stennes, MD, Jan Stepek, Ralph L. Stephens, Stuart Stephens, PhD, David A. Stepp, Edward E. Sterling, MD, John A. Stern, Sidney Sternberg, Alvin R. Stetson, David L. Stetzel, Milan R. Steube, Frank Stevens, Lewis A. Stevens, Albert E. Stevenson, Robert E. Stevenson, PhD, Robert Lovell Stevenson, PhD, Gordon Ervin Stewart, PhD, Homer J. Stewart, PhD*, Kathleen M. Stewart, MD, Wayne L. Stewart, Chris Stier, Gerald G. Still, PhD, Howard A. Stine, Daniel P. Stites, MD, Richard P. Stock, Norman Stockdale, Norman D. Stockwell, PhD, Larry J. Stoehr, Donald G Stoffey, PhD, David Stone, Tabby L. Stone, PhD, W. Ross Stone, PhD, Donald E. Stout, Jay C. Stovall, David J Stowell, Erwin Otto Strahl, PhD, Robert L. Strand, Edward D. Strassman, Paul M. Straub, Joe M. Straus, PhD, James R. Strawn, Herbert D. Strong Jr., Allen Strother, PhD, Wilfred Stroud, Kenneth A. Stroup, Mark W. Strovink, PhD, Harold K. Strunk, PhD, John H. Struthers, Allen Stubberud, PhD, Perry L. Studt, PhD, Justin Stull, Gunther L. Sturm, M. Subramanian, PhD, Marek A. Suchenek, PhD, Mark A. Suden, James Carr Suits, PhD, John F. Sullivan, Joseph H Sullivan, Robert J. Sultan, Andrew D. Sun, MD, Sally S. Sun, MD, Vane E. Suter, Mark E. Sutherlin, John Svalbe, Curtis Edward Swain, PhD, Daniel Swain, PhD, Robert J. Swain, David Swan, Alan A. Swanson, Linda S. Swanson, MD, Robert Nols Swanson, William Alan Sweeney, PhD, Peter Swerling, PhD, Chauncey Melvin Swinney, PhD, Leif Syrstad, George B. Szabo, Walter S. Szczepanski, Andrew Y. Szeto, PhD, Edwin E. Szymanski, PhD, Leonard Tachner, Spencer L. Tacke, Charles E. Tackels, David Dakin Taft, PhD, Bill H. Taggart, Steve J. Taggart, MD, Samuel Isaac Taimuty, PhD, Girdhari S. Taksali, David B. Talcott, Donald D. Talley, Harry H. Tan, PhD, Y. Tang, PhD, James B. Tapp, Waino A. Tapple, Anthony Tate, Rick Tavores, PhD, Richard L. Taw, MD, Donald E. Taylor, Edward Taylor, George F. Taylor, John J. Taylor, Michael K. Taylor, Neil L. Taylor, William G. Taylor, MD, Frank C. Tecca, Edward A. Tellefsen, Edward Teller, PhD*, Orlando V. Telles, Robert Templeton, John T. Tengdin, Jacob Y. Terner, MD, Richard D. Terry, PhD, Steven R. Terwilliger, Henry J. Tevelde, DVM, Richard W. Tew, PhD, Edward Teyssier, Michael G. Thalhamer, Joshua M. Tharp Jr., Conley S Thatcher, Gordon H. Theilen, DVM, Jerold Howard Theis, PhD, James D. Thissell, Roderick W. Thoits, Charles A. Thomas Jr., PhD, Dean Thomas, Garfield J. Thomas, Gerald A. Thomas, PhD, James Thomas, Kevin L. Thomas, Russ H. Thomas, Michel A. Thomet, PhD, Dennis P. Thompson, MD, Ken Thompson, William J. Thornhill, Lewis Throop, PhD, Henrik C. Thurfjell, John P. Tibbas, Gerald F. Tice, Karen M. Tierney, MD, William Arthur Tiller, PhD, Edward K. Tipler, Arthur Robert Tobey, PhD, Joseph D. Tobiason, PhD, Brent Tolend, Gerald V. Toler, David C. Toller, MD, Maher B. Toma, MD, Crisanto R. Tomongin, Wilfred Earl Toreson, PhD, Eric D. Torguson, Felipe N. Torres, John P. Toth, MD, Charles H. Touton, D
avid C. Tower, MD, Jeffrey G. Towle, PhD, Edward L. Townsend, Norton R. Townsley, Donald Frederick Towse, PhD, Rosalyn Tran, MD, Elbert W. Trantow, Timothy L. Trapp, Mitchell Trauring, William Brailsford Travers, PhD, Frank C. Trayer, B. V. Traynor, Raymond Treder, John D. Trelford, MD, William H. Trent, PhD, Richard L. Trimble, Patrick A. Tripe, MD, Curtis W. Tritchka, Glenn C. Troman, Craig J. Trombly, Tony Troutman, Bretton E. Trowbridge, Eddy S. Tsao, A. N. Tschaeche, Tai Po Tschang, MD, Manuel Tsiang, PhD, Theodore Yao Tsu Wu, PhD, Dean B. Tuft, PhD, Raymond Tulkki, Bryan Tullis, Richard Eugene Tullis, PhD, B. R. Tunai, Andy Tung, Willis E. Tunnell, MD, Richard E. Turk, MD, Robert L. Turk, MD, Robert E. Turner, PhD, Ted H. Tuschka, PhD, Henry A. Tuttle, Robert Tuttobene, Ross W. Tye, PhD, Glenn A. Tyler, PhD, Vincent H. Uhlenkott, Harold B. Uhlig, Joseph J. Unger, Erik Unthank, Robert R. Upp, PhD, James L. Uptegrove, Donadl C. Urfer, Eldon L. Uverne Knuth, PhD, Richard J Vacherot, Frank H. Vacio, MD, J. O. Vadeboncoeur, John A. Vaillancourt, MD, J. Peter Vajk, PhD, A. Valdos-Meneses, Richard M. Valeriote, MD, Bernard A. Vallerga, Jacob E. Valstar, Job van der Bliek, James R. Van Hise, PhD, Paul M Van Loenen, Naola Van Orden, PhD*, William W. Van Vorst, PhD, John H. VanAmringe, Peter Vanblarigan, PhD, Mark Vande Pol, Arthur VanDeBrake, Willem Vander Bijl, PhD, Chris J. Vandermaas, Gary J Vandermolen, Garret N. Vanderplaats, PhD, Larry E. Vanhorn, Walker S. Vaning, Ruth A. vanKnapp, Barry M. Vann, Vito August Vanoni, PhD, Vagarshak V. Vardanyan, PhD, Larry Vardiman, PhD, Perry H. Vartanian Jr., PhD, Bangalore Seshachalam Vasu, PhD, T. D. Vaughan, Arlie D. Vaughn, King F. Vaughn, Steven W. Vawter, Kenneth S. Vecchio, PhD, Alejandro T. Vega, Edward E. Velarde, Margarita B. Velarde, MD, Daniel W. Velasquez, Wencel J. Velicer, Louis Veltese, Theodore E. Veltfort, Anthony J. Verbiscar, PhD*, Robert J. Verderber, Jared Verner, PhD, Dmitry Vernik, PhD, Daniel J. Vesely, Peter Vessella, Thomas H. Vestal, Louis Vettese, Charles L. Vice, Joan Vickery, Andrew S. Vidikan, Susan L. Vigars, Carlos F. Villalpando, Roberto Villaverde, PhD, Norbert F. Vinatieri, Edgar L. Vincent, Jonathan R. Vinci, R. C. Visser, Richard K. Vitek, Petro Vlahos, Roger Frederick Vogel, Randy L. Vogelgesang, Kevin G. Vogelsang, Edward J. Vollrath, Richard L. Volpe, Robert M. Volpe, Karl Vonderlinden, PhD, Suresh H. Vora, Frederick H. Vorhis, Earl H. Vossenkemper, Frederick C. Vote, Henry P. Voznick, Daniel L. Vrable, PhD, William R. Wachtler, PhD, Don Wade, MD, Glen Wade, PhD, Robert Harold Wade, PhD, William Howard Wade, PhD, Donald Wadsworth, PhD, James K. Wagner, Kenneth E. Wagner, MD, Mark A. Wagner, Lewis D. Wagoner, David P. Wahl, Dennis L. Wahl, Howard W. Wahl, Scott G. Wahl, Richard I. Waite Jr., George Wakayama, R. Stephen Waldeck, Jason S. Waldrop, Richard T. Wales, Dennis Kendon Walker, PhD, Jay H. Walker, John C. Walker, Patrick M. Walker, Raymond W. Walker, Verbon P. Walker, Milton B. Walkup, Edward M. Wall, Edwin Garfield Wallace, PhD, Tom S. Wallace, Eleanor A. Wallen, MD, Henry A. Waller, John E. Wallis, Joel D. Walls, PhD, Darrel N. Walter, Herbert G. Walter, MD, Gregg D. Walters, Austin G. Walther, Donald M. Waltz, Bohdan I. Wandzura, Qingqi Wang, T. Wang, PhD, Zhi Jing Wang, PhD, Dennis Wangsness, Casidy A Ward, Dale Ward, James J. Ward, Jay L. Ward, Paul H. Ward, MD, Charlene L. Wardlow, Ronald S. Wardrop, Richard V. Warnock, Jack S. Warren, Richard Warriner, John P. Waschak, Halbert S. Washburn, Harry L. Washburn, Robert M. Washburn, Claude Guy Wasterlain, PhD, Glenn L. Wasz, Milton N. Watanabe, Dean A. Watkins, PhD, Charlie E. Watson, Gary W. Watson, Guy E. Watson, William W. Watson, R. E. Watts, Walter L. Way, MD, Todd Weatherford, PhD, Robert A. Weatherup, David L Weaver, Robert D. Weaver, Albert Dinsmoor Webb, PhD, Jack W. Webb, William P. Webb, PhD, Harry V. Webber, MD, Bruce Warren Webbon, PhD, Barrett H. Weber, MD, Erich C. Weber, William P. Weber, PhD, David Webster, Mark B. Webster, D. J. Wechsler, Saul Wechter, William J. Wechter, PhD, Lloyd Weese, William H. Weese, Robert L. Wehrli, Rudolph W. Weibel, Glen F. Weien II, Hans Weil-Malherbe, PhD, Carl Martin Weinbaum, PhD, William M. Weinstein, MD, Daniel G. Weis, PhD, Russell J. Weis, Max T. Weiss, PhD, Frank Joseph Welch, PhD, Robin Ivor Welch, PhD, Hugh E. Wells, Lee O Welter, MD, Gunnar Wennerberg, R. C. Wentworth, PhD, Robert P. Wenzell, Victor H Werlhof, MD, Robert H. Wertheim, Donald A. Wesley, PhD, A. Wessman, Clinton L. West, Jack H. West, Robert E. West, Travie J. Westlund, Kenneth Harry Westmacott, PhD, Henry Griggs Weston Jr., PhD, Duane Westover, Robert J. Wetherall, Mike A. Whatley, Carlos Wheeler, Joseph G. Whelan, Vernon T. Whitaker, David J. White, Gerry W. White, Joel E. White, MD, Richard L. White, Robert Lee White, PhD, Sterling F. White, William R. White, Kenneth E. Whitehead, Kent G. Whitham, Stephen A. Whitlock, David V. Whitmore, Dennis B. Whitney, Robert C. Whitten, PhD, R. Whitting, Derek A. Whitworth, PhD, Eyvind H. Wichmann, PhD, John G. Wichmann, DVM, Dave E. Wick, George J. Widly, Arthur F. Widtfeldt, Mark J Wiechmann, PhD, Daniel W. Wiedman, Francis P. Wiegand, Robert L. Wiegel, Doug Wiens, Don A. Wiggins, John Henry Wiggins, PhD, John S. Wiggins, PhD*, David W. Wilbur, PhD, Corbet E. Wilcox, Michael R. Wilcox, Orland W. Wilcox, Carroll Orville Wilde, PhD, James W. Wilder, Fred R. Wiley, Wilbur F. Wilhelm, Donald W. Wilke, Charles L. Wilkins, DVM, Harold E. Wilkins, MD, Ross C. Wilkinson, Bennington J. Willardson, Austin M. Williams, Edgar P. Williams, Forrest R Williams, Wayne S Williams, David W. Wilson, PhD, Donald E. Wilson, MD, Garth H. Wilson, PhD, Jack Wilson, Jerome M. Wilson, Linda W. Wilson, MD, Maurice L. Wilson, Melvin N. Wilson, Michael A. Wilson, Royce D. Wilson, William E. Wilson, George D. Wiltchik, MD, Edward J. Wimmer, Jack A. Winchell, Ernest O. Winkler, Robert Winslow, Roger G. Winslow, Guy W. Winston, Harry Winterlin, Wray Laverne Winterlin, Bruce A. Winters, MD, Philip Rex Winters, Donald F. Winterstein, PhD, Guy W Winton, Jr, W. T. Wipke, PhD, Wesley L. Wisdom, Edward Witczak, Eric V. Witt, Kenneth A. Witte, PhD, Robert F. Witters, Lawrence R. Wlezien, James K. Wobser, Virgil O. Wodicka, PhD, Milo M. Wolff, PhD, Paul M Wolff, PhD, John H. Wolthausen, Fred W. Womble, Ka-Chun Wong, Otto Wong, PhD, Sun Y. Wong, Bruce Wood, David L Wood, MD, Don E Wood, James M. Wood II, Kevin G. Wood, Walter H. Wood, MD, Willis Avery Wood, PhD, Michael L. Woodard, Michael D. Woods, Richard C. Woodward, Robert J. Woodward, Gene A. Worscheck, Edward P. Wosika, Margaret Skillman Woyski, PhD, David G. Wright, Harold V. Wright, Keith A. Wright, Melville T. Wright, Michael E. Wright, William W. Wright, Chris J Wrigley Jr., Jack G. Wulff, Charles R. Wunderlich, Richard A. Wunderlich, Stephen Walker Wunderly, PhD, David E. Wyatt, MD, Jeff Wyatt, Philip J. Wyatt, PhD, Bruce M. Wyckoff, Robert A. Wyckoff, Thomas S. Wyman, Leslie K. Wynston, PhD, William Xenakis, Y. Xie, PhD, Albert R. Yackle, Bohdan M. Yacyshyn, Paul F. Yaggy, Richard N Yale, Walter M. Yamada, PhD, Jack A. Yamauchi, John S. Yankey II, John Lee Yarnall, PhD, Anthony Yarosky, Francis Eugene Yates, MD, John L Yates, Melvin B. Yates, Robert W. Yates, Scott Raymond Yates, PhD, John C. Yeakley, Carlton S. Yee, PhD, Kuo-Tay P. Yeh, Paul Pao Yeh, PhD, Michael W. Yeoman, Ki Jeong Yi, Sherwin D. Yoelin, Denison W. York, G. Young, Jackson Young, Richard Young, Robert D. Young, Stephen G. Young, MD, Wei Young, PhD, Dennis E. Youngdahl, John C. Youngdahl, Mohamad A. Yousef, PhD, Mary Alice Yund, PhD, D. Yundt, Sulhi H. Yungul, PhD, Kirk A. Zabel, David R. Zachary, Michael N Zaharias, Kamen N. Zakov, MD, Carlos A. Zamano, Alex Zapassoff, J. Edward Zawatson, Jason D. Zeda, Yuan Chung Zee, PhD, Howard C. Zehetner, Ken R. Zeier, Sanford S. Zeller, Kerry Zemp, Robert H. Zettlemoyer, Yi Zhad, PhD, Sigi Zierling, PhD, David L. Zimmerman, Elmer LeRoy Zimmerman, PhD*, Douglas A. Ziprick, MD, Harold Zirin, PhD, Keith Zondervan, PhD, Louis M. Zucker, MD, Yury Zundelevich, PhD, Joe Zupan, Soloman Zwerdling, PhD
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_ ... e_main.php
I'll let you take the time to go through each one of them and to ridicule each of their professions.
You can pick each of them apart in ABC order or however you wish to do it. But my advice would be to not feel too overwhelmed.
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Saint_;1267866 wrote: Dead straight.
And let's look on the bright side, even if you think Climate Change isn't real, the kinds of things we are doing to help that, cutting carbon emissions, finding alternative power sources, and recycling, are all things we should be doing ANYWAY!:-6
Precisely.
And let's look on the bright side, even if you think Climate Change isn't real, the kinds of things we are doing to help that, cutting carbon emissions, finding alternative power sources, and recycling, are all things we should be doing ANYWAY!:-6
Precisely.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
LarsMac;1267907 wrote: Precisely.
Well if the Pole-Shift does take place in the coming years as has been previously predicted, all of that stuff will be the last thing on our minds. For those who us left on the planet.
If nothing happens, and everything remains the same, then I am all for improving the planet and recuding the damage we are doing to it (and I'm not talking climate related damage).
Well if the Pole-Shift does take place in the coming years as has been previously predicted, all of that stuff will be the last thing on our minds. For those who us left on the planet.
If nothing happens, and everything remains the same, then I am all for improving the planet and recuding the damage we are doing to it (and I'm not talking climate related damage).
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
I should also bring up this point because I don't seem to understand how healing the planet (which would take hundreds and hundreds of years to do) and which I hate to break it to people is not something that Humans beings can achieve all by themselves, is more important than how Human beings are currently interacting with eachother around the World.
If we can't fix the problem of wars on our planet's surface, than healing the planet is a lost cause anyways. After all, what is the use of having a healthier planet where the climate is more stable, if there are still so many countries going to war with eachother and killing eachother, and constantly devising newer and more efficient ways to do so?
Seems like we currently have our priorities backwards if you ask me.
If we can't fix the problem of wars on our planet's surface, than healing the planet is a lost cause anyways. After all, what is the use of having a healthier planet where the climate is more stable, if there are still so many countries going to war with eachother and killing eachother, and constantly devising newer and more efficient ways to do so?
Seems like we currently have our priorities backwards if you ask me.
Link removed by moderator
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1267847 wrote: I think you'll find that the Earth is moving farther from the sun with each passing century rather than closer. On the other hand, the sun is getting warmer with time.
Both of these trends, however, are so gradual as to have no effect on Earth's energy input over recorded history and are far less important than cyclic changes to solar output or changes to Earth's albedo.
do we have proof of this? Has anyone looked at it recently. or is it just us who have noticed how hot the sun is in winter all of the sudden? when you can now get a tan in winter in Victoria without going to the snow fields there's a problem.
Both of these trends, however, are so gradual as to have no effect on Earth's energy input over recorded history and are far less important than cyclic changes to solar output or changes to Earth's albedo.
do we have proof of this? Has anyone looked at it recently. or is it just us who have noticed how hot the sun is in winter all of the sudden? when you can now get a tan in winter in Victoria without going to the snow fields there's a problem.
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267905 wrote: Well if we take the petition I listed above,
Petition Signers in California
3,766 Signers out of 31,486 Total in US
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD,.
Dude...that post's carbon footprint was so big it raised the temperature of the planet one degree by itself!:wah:
But seriously, how can a petition of a few thousand American scientists (most likely with a hidden agenda) compare to the consensus of hundreds of thousands of worldwide scientists?
That's like saying the high school graduating class has the majority opinion of your entire city.
Petition Signers in California
3,766 Signers out of 31,486 Total in US
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD,.
Dude...that post's carbon footprint was so big it raised the temperature of the planet one degree by itself!:wah:
But seriously, how can a petition of a few thousand American scientists (most likely with a hidden agenda) compare to the consensus of hundreds of thousands of worldwide scientists?
That's like saying the high school graduating class has the majority opinion of your entire city.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Saint_;1267933 wrote: Dude...that post's carbon footprint was so big it raised the temperature of the planet one degree by itself!:wah:
But seriously, how can a petition of a few thousand American scientists (most likely with a hidden agenda) compare to the consensus of hundreds of thousands of worldwide scientists?
That's like saying the high school graduating class has the majority opinion of your entire city.
Over 30,000 scientists in total to be exact. And the list gets bigger everyday.
But seriously, how can a petition of a few thousand American scientists (most likely with a hidden agenda) compare to the consensus of hundreds of thousands of worldwide scientists?
That's like saying the high school graduating class has the majority opinion of your entire city.
Over 30,000 scientists in total to be exact. And the list gets bigger everyday.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1268016 wrote: Over 30,000 scientists in total to be exact. And the list gets bigger everyday.Kevin Grandia | The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
fuzzywuzzy;1267929 wrote: do we have proof of this? Has anyone looked at it recently. or is it just us who have noticed how hot the sun is in winter all of the sudden? when you can now get a tan in winter in Victoria without going to the snow fields there's a problem.
Isn't Oz almost directly below the hole in the Ozone layer - that would account for the observed changes.
Isn't Oz almost directly below the hole in the Ozone layer - that would account for the observed changes.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Robert J;1268023 wrote: Kevin Grandia | The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
Well of course they call it propaganda. Because they are on the side of the Global Warming theory. But ask the people who signed the petition if they think it's propaganda. They'll tell you that it's not.
Debunked? How does a person debunk a petition? I don't get it...
I'll tell you what's debunkable though. Global Warming Science. That has been debunked by many scientists already. Those who know that the Sun is what's really causing it.
Well of course they call it propaganda. Because they are on the side of the Global Warming theory. But ask the people who signed the petition if they think it's propaganda. They'll tell you that it's not.
Debunked? How does a person debunk a petition? I don't get it...
I'll tell you what's debunkable though. Global Warming Science. That has been debunked by many scientists already. Those who know that the Sun is what's really causing it.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1268249 wrote: Well of course they call it propaganda. Because they are on the side of the Global Warming theory. But ask the people who signed the petition if they think it's propaganda. They'll tell you that it's not.
Debunked? How does a person debunk a petition? I don't get it...
I'll tell you whats debunkable though. Global Warming Science. That has been debunked by many scientists already. Those who know that the Sun is what's really causing it.
Firstly, by showing that the people that have signed it are not qualified to speak on the subject involved or that they have a conflict of interest in the subject.
Debunked? How does a person debunk a petition? I don't get it...
I'll tell you whats debunkable though. Global Warming Science. That has been debunked by many scientists already. Those who know that the Sun is what's really causing it.
Firstly, by showing that the people that have signed it are not qualified to speak on the subject involved or that they have a conflict of interest in the subject.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1268252 wrote: Firstly, by showing that the people that have signed it are not qualified to speak on the subject involved or that they have a conflict of interest in the subject.
They didn't show that though. They showed that many of them are scientists....the rest are people with MD's and PHD's....those people are qualified to talk about it.
They didn't show that though. They showed that many of them are scientists....the rest are people with MD's and PHD's....those people are qualified to talk about it.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
lol. I'm not going to get into this game with you. People sign petitions everyday, 99% of whom we know nothing about. I see the games you people who are against the petition are trying to play. You know it would be impossible to check on every single person who signed it.
Just like when you guys talk about the "hundreds of thousands of scientists who back the Global Warming theory". Thats bullshit and you know it. Where's the exact list of these Hundreds of thousands of scientists?
At least these people on that site listed the names on the petition. When you guys talk about all the pretend scientists who back global warming you don't ever give a single name usually.
Just like when you guys talk about the "hundreds of thousands of scientists who back the Global Warming theory". Thats bullshit and you know it. Where's the exact list of these Hundreds of thousands of scientists?
At least these people on that site listed the names on the petition. When you guys talk about all the pretend scientists who back global warming you don't ever give a single name usually.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1268254 wrote: They didn't show that though. They showed that many of them are scientists....the rest are people with MD's and PHD's....those people are qualified to talk about it.
Kindly define a "scientist".
Then define who is qualified to advise on Presidential policy regarding Climate Change.
I am a computer scientist - will I do?
Kindly define a "scientist".
Then define who is qualified to advise on Presidential policy regarding Climate Change.
I am a computer scientist - will I do?
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1268257 wrote: Kindly define a "scientist".
Then define who is qualified to advise on Presidential policy regarding Climate Change.
I am a computer scientist - will I do?
I would say.....no.
Because last time I checked....computers had nothing to do with climate change. Although....you might be good at crunching the numbers for the graphs and such....For the data I mean as well.
Then define who is qualified to advise on Presidential policy regarding Climate Change.
I am a computer scientist - will I do?
I would say.....no.
Because last time I checked....computers had nothing to do with climate change. Although....you might be good at crunching the numbers for the graphs and such....For the data I mean as well.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1268259 wrote: I would say.....no.
Then how do all of the engineers, solid-state physicists and petroleum geologists on the petition qualify?
Then how do all of the engineers, solid-state physicists and petroleum geologists on the petition qualify?
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1268261 wrote: Then how do all of the engineers, solid-state physicists and petroleum geologists on the petition qualify?
Well...didn't I just say you would be good at crunching the numbers for all the data?
Well...didn't I just say you would be good at crunching the numbers for all the data?
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1268256 wrote: lol. I'm not going to get into this game with you. People sign petitions everyday, 99% of whom we know nothing about. I see the games you people who are against the petition are trying to play. You know it would be impossible to check on every single person who signed it.
Whoa pardner! Now settle down, I'm not trying to play any games. I'm just very concerned. I see it as thought the Planet Earth is a car hurtling down the freeway at 90 mph without a driver. You and I are in the back seat arguing about whether or not a 90 mph crash will kill us.
Shouldn't we be taking control of the car no matter what? That's why I say we need to recycle, find new energy sources, and stop polluting. Not because of the Global Warming debate, but just because its common sense.
Just like when you guys talk about the "hundreds of thousands of scientists who back the Global Warming theory". Thats bullshit and you know it. Where's the exact list of these Hundreds of thousands of scientists?
OK, I was researching just that question when I came across this:
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
I'm sorry, but that looks like a scam to me.
At least these people on that site listed the names on the petition. When you guys talk about all the pretend scientists who back global warming you don't ever give a single name usually.
Let me see if I can find that answer...
OK, I came up with this:
Joint statement from 11 national academies of science
Issued 7 June 2005, by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India, the statement begins with:
Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
Now seriously, 11 (of the greatest countries on Earth) National Science Academies agree that GW is real.
Truthbringer...either that's the greatest conspiracy I've ever seen in history, or it is real. Why would all the most powerful Scientists in the world lie? What is there to be gained? Al they want is for us to get away from the Age of Oil which is dying anyway.
Whoa pardner! Now settle down, I'm not trying to play any games. I'm just very concerned. I see it as thought the Planet Earth is a car hurtling down the freeway at 90 mph without a driver. You and I are in the back seat arguing about whether or not a 90 mph crash will kill us.
Shouldn't we be taking control of the car no matter what? That's why I say we need to recycle, find new energy sources, and stop polluting. Not because of the Global Warming debate, but just because its common sense.
Just like when you guys talk about the "hundreds of thousands of scientists who back the Global Warming theory". Thats bullshit and you know it. Where's the exact list of these Hundreds of thousands of scientists?
OK, I was researching just that question when I came across this:
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
I'm sorry, but that looks like a scam to me.
At least these people on that site listed the names on the petition. When you guys talk about all the pretend scientists who back global warming you don't ever give a single name usually.
Let me see if I can find that answer...
OK, I came up with this:
Joint statement from 11 national academies of science
Issued 7 June 2005, by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India, the statement begins with:
Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
Now seriously, 11 (of the greatest countries on Earth) National Science Academies agree that GW is real.
Truthbringer...either that's the greatest conspiracy I've ever seen in history, or it is real. Why would all the most powerful Scientists in the world lie? What is there to be gained? Al they want is for us to get away from the Age of Oil which is dying anyway.
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
One last post in here: (I hope)
Truthbringer: Would you agree that the Age of Oil is ending?
Honestly, oil is finite. At the rate we are using it, there's no way it can last even another century. ( I know this from a computer simulation I personally saw in engineering college in the 1980s)
Why not look for alternate energy sources and recycle? We'll have to do it soon anyway!:o
Truthbringer: Would you agree that the Age of Oil is ending?
Honestly, oil is finite. At the rate we are using it, there's no way it can last even another century. ( I know this from a computer simulation I personally saw in engineering college in the 1980s)
Why not look for alternate energy sources and recycle? We'll have to do it soon anyway!:o
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
How many domestic engineers signed the petition?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
How about Intelligent Design scientists, how many of them signed?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Robert J;1268277 wrote: How about Intelligent Design scientists, how many of them signed?
Ouch.:wah:
Ouch.:wah:
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Saint_;1268273 wrote: Whoa pardner! Now settle down, I'm not trying to play any games. I'm just very concerned. I see it as thought the Planet Earth is a car hurtling down the freeway at 90 mph without a driver. You and I are in the back seat arguing about whether or not a 90 mph crash will kill us.
Shouldn't we be taking control of the car no matter what? That's why I say we need to recycle, find new energy sources, and stop polluting. Not because of the Global Warming debate, but just because its common sense.
OK, I was researching just that question when I came across this:
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
I'm sorry, but that looks like a scam to me.
Let me see if I can find that answer...
OK, I came up with this:
Joint statement from 11 national academies of science
Issued 7 June 2005, by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India, the statement begins with:
Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
Now seriously, 11 (of the greatest countries on Earth) National Science Academies agree that GW is real.
Truthbringer...either that's the greatest conspiracy I've ever seen in history, or it is real. Why would all the most powerful Scientists in the world lie? What is there to be gained? Al they want is for us to get away from the Age of Oil which is dying anyway.
I just wish you guys could see behind the curtain. And see the reality of the situation. These guys don't care about you or your family. Ok....they care about one thing..Money. And you can bet that those institutions are being funded by the governments who are participating in the money making process. Not because they care so much about you (believe me they don't), but because there is a bigger picture and a much larger agenda than any of you seem to realize.
It's about control. It's about domination. It's about taking out farm fields and replacing them with bio fuel plants and things of that nature. It's about millions of people around the World are already starving, and now millions more are going to be starving as a result of the farms being taken away.
You have to see the bigger picture here people. Our government has been corrupt for a long time now here in America. We are still fighting two wars without end in sight, where people are losing their lives everyday. Wars that are getting us nowhere, and the governments behind these wars don't care about your carbon footprint trust me. Only now are people starting to see these wars for what they really are. These people care more about the pink ass of a baboon than they care about your carbon footprint. No, this is about taking away more and more of what little freedoms you have left, and replacing them with a system of control and a mandatory doctrine of Evil which hides itself behind the idea of saving the World (which as I said before is nothing that can be done by Human beings alone).
We can fight about who signed that petition and who didn't sign that petition for months, but it won't get us anywhere. The petition is real and thats all I can say about that. But when it comes to what these countries under the command of the United Nations are planning for all of us, unfortunately as has been the case throughout history, countries don't realize what they are getting themselves into until it's already too late.
Now I know some of you are thinking, come on TruthBringer, what could possibly go wrong with a little extra recycling and a little less pollution in the sky? And better gasoline mileage for our cars? No no my friends, it is MUCH MUCH bigger than that. The restrictions you will find yourself under are going to blow your mind. And you will long for the days that you had more freedom. But you can kiss those days goodbye. And you will see what I mean when these bastards put all this **** into place. But by then, there won't be a damn thing any of us can do about it, because the time to stop it all will have already passed us by.
Shouldn't we be taking control of the car no matter what? That's why I say we need to recycle, find new energy sources, and stop polluting. Not because of the Global Warming debate, but just because its common sense.
OK, I was researching just that question when I came across this:
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
I'm sorry, but that looks like a scam to me.
Let me see if I can find that answer...
OK, I came up with this:
Joint statement from 11 national academies of science
Issued 7 June 2005, by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India, the statement begins with:
Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
Now seriously, 11 (of the greatest countries on Earth) National Science Academies agree that GW is real.
Truthbringer...either that's the greatest conspiracy I've ever seen in history, or it is real. Why would all the most powerful Scientists in the world lie? What is there to be gained? Al they want is for us to get away from the Age of Oil which is dying anyway.
I just wish you guys could see behind the curtain. And see the reality of the situation. These guys don't care about you or your family. Ok....they care about one thing..Money. And you can bet that those institutions are being funded by the governments who are participating in the money making process. Not because they care so much about you (believe me they don't), but because there is a bigger picture and a much larger agenda than any of you seem to realize.
It's about control. It's about domination. It's about taking out farm fields and replacing them with bio fuel plants and things of that nature. It's about millions of people around the World are already starving, and now millions more are going to be starving as a result of the farms being taken away.
You have to see the bigger picture here people. Our government has been corrupt for a long time now here in America. We are still fighting two wars without end in sight, where people are losing their lives everyday. Wars that are getting us nowhere, and the governments behind these wars don't care about your carbon footprint trust me. Only now are people starting to see these wars for what they really are. These people care more about the pink ass of a baboon than they care about your carbon footprint. No, this is about taking away more and more of what little freedoms you have left, and replacing them with a system of control and a mandatory doctrine of Evil which hides itself behind the idea of saving the World (which as I said before is nothing that can be done by Human beings alone).
We can fight about who signed that petition and who didn't sign that petition for months, but it won't get us anywhere. The petition is real and thats all I can say about that. But when it comes to what these countries under the command of the United Nations are planning for all of us, unfortunately as has been the case throughout history, countries don't realize what they are getting themselves into until it's already too late.
Now I know some of you are thinking, come on TruthBringer, what could possibly go wrong with a little extra recycling and a little less pollution in the sky? And better gasoline mileage for our cars? No no my friends, it is MUCH MUCH bigger than that. The restrictions you will find yourself under are going to blow your mind. And you will long for the days that you had more freedom. But you can kiss those days goodbye. And you will see what I mean when these bastards put all this **** into place. But by then, there won't be a damn thing any of us can do about it, because the time to stop it all will have already passed us by.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1268352 wrote: I just wish you guys could see behind the curtain. And see the reality of the situation. These guys don't care about you or your family. Ok....they care about one thing..Money. And you can bet that those institutions are being funded by the governments who are participating in the money making process. Not because they care so much about you (believe me they don't), but because there is a bigger picture and a much larger agenda than any of you seem to realize.
It's about control. It's about domination. It's about taking out farm fields and replacing them with bio fuel plants and things of that nature. It's about millions of people around the World are already starving, and now millions more are going to be starving as a result of the farms being taken away.
You have to see the bigger picture here people. Our government has been corrupt for a long time now here in America. We are still fighting two wars without end in sight, where people are losing their lives everyday. Wars that are getting us nowhere, and the governments behind these wars don't care about your carbon footprint trust me. Only now are people starting to see these wars for what they really are. These people care more about the pink ass of a baboon than they care about your carbon footprint. No, this is about taking away more and more of what little freedoms you have left, and replacing them with a system of control and a mandatory doctrine of Evil which hides itself behind the idea of saving the World (which as I said before is nothing that can be done by Human beings alone).
We can fight about who signed that petition and who didn't sign that petition for months, but it won't get us anywhere. The petition is real and thats all I can say about that. But when it comes to what these countries under the command of the United Nations are planning for all of us, unfortunately as has been the case throughout history, countries don't realize what they are getting themselves into until it's already too late.
Now I know some of you are thinking, come on TruthBringer, what could possibly go wrong with a little extra recycling and a little less pollution in the sky? And better gasoline mileage for our cars? No no my friends, it is MUCH MUCH bigger than that. The restrictions you will find yourself under are going to blow your mind. And you will long for the days that you had more freedom. But you can kiss those days goodbye. And you will see what I mean when these bastards put all this **** into place. But by then, there won't be a damn thing any of us can do about it, because the time to stop it all will have already passed us by.I for one understand your concerns, TB, but to be honest, whats wrong with caution? I'd rather err on the safe side rather than continue down this polluted path we're on. If its a marketing technique to change our manufacturing and consumption habits that's fine with me on any level.
It's about control. It's about domination. It's about taking out farm fields and replacing them with bio fuel plants and things of that nature. It's about millions of people around the World are already starving, and now millions more are going to be starving as a result of the farms being taken away.
You have to see the bigger picture here people. Our government has been corrupt for a long time now here in America. We are still fighting two wars without end in sight, where people are losing their lives everyday. Wars that are getting us nowhere, and the governments behind these wars don't care about your carbon footprint trust me. Only now are people starting to see these wars for what they really are. These people care more about the pink ass of a baboon than they care about your carbon footprint. No, this is about taking away more and more of what little freedoms you have left, and replacing them with a system of control and a mandatory doctrine of Evil which hides itself behind the idea of saving the World (which as I said before is nothing that can be done by Human beings alone).
We can fight about who signed that petition and who didn't sign that petition for months, but it won't get us anywhere. The petition is real and thats all I can say about that. But when it comes to what these countries under the command of the United Nations are planning for all of us, unfortunately as has been the case throughout history, countries don't realize what they are getting themselves into until it's already too late.
Now I know some of you are thinking, come on TruthBringer, what could possibly go wrong with a little extra recycling and a little less pollution in the sky? And better gasoline mileage for our cars? No no my friends, it is MUCH MUCH bigger than that. The restrictions you will find yourself under are going to blow your mind. And you will long for the days that you had more freedom. But you can kiss those days goodbye. And you will see what I mean when these bastards put all this **** into place. But by then, there won't be a damn thing any of us can do about it, because the time to stop it all will have already passed us by.I for one understand your concerns, TB, but to be honest, whats wrong with caution? I'd rather err on the safe side rather than continue down this polluted path we're on. If its a marketing technique to change our manufacturing and consumption habits that's fine with me on any level.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1268352 wrote: I just wish you guys could see behind the curtain. And see the reality of the situation.
That's my line - I just wish you could see the truth instead of insisting on this convoluted conspiracy theory.
That's my line - I just wish you could see the truth instead of insisting on this convoluted conspiracy theory.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climate experts grilled over hacked emails
Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails:
WASHINGTON – House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't change the fact that the world is warming.
The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and posted online about two weeks ago. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent, and conservative bloggers are dubbing it "Climategate."
In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans Wednesday read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.
The exploding controversy led Phil Jones to step aside as head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.
"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue, said Holdren, a physicist who has studied climate change.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House global warming committee.
The hearing was supposed to focus on the latest in global warming scientific findings. Lubchenco even attempted a high school chemistry lesson with two quick experiments at the witness table. Donning one rubber glove, she demonstrated how adding carbon dioxide to water made it more acidic and said that is what's now happening in the world's oceans. Then she put chalk in acidic water compounds and showed it dissolving a bit, to demonstrate what will happen eventually to vital sea life.
But her bubble-inducing experiments were ignored in favor of the more explosive e-mails.
Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Holdren responded that the word "trick" did not mean manipulation of data, but about a "clever way" to tackle a problem. Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."
Defending the scientists, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said somehow the e-mails aren't stopping the Arctic from warming, the oceans from getting more acidic, and glaciers from melting. He sarcastically asked Holdren and Lubchenco if they were part of a global conspiracy that even included fictional movie villain organizations. Holdren, played along, saying he was not.
After complaining of "scientific fascism" and "scientific McCarthyism," Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."
What the e-mail, not read by Sensenbrenner, showed was that Holdren used ironic quotes around the word "Harvard" in describing two of his colleagues who are global warming skeptics. Holdren also had forwarded to other scientists an article he described as "for your entertainment" in which he was quoted as saying the two skeptics were "wrong." Holdren defended his e-mail.
Sensenbrenner attacked the work of Penn State's Mann, who is frequently brought up in the communications. Mann is the author of what is called the "hockey stick" theory, first described in the late 1990s. It suggested that the past 50 years had been the hottest in several centuries, if not 1,000 years, and that man-made global warming was to blame. That research was so controversial that the National Academy of Sciences studied the work in depth; it was used in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming.
Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann's hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann's theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann's methods but agreed with his results.
The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.
"The conclusions that we came to were essentially the same as the hockey stick" theory that Mann proposed, North told The Associated Press. North said even if Jones, Mann and others had done no research at all, the world would still be warming and scientists would still be able to show it.
Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails - Yahoo! News
Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails:
WASHINGTON – House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't change the fact that the world is warming.
The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and posted online about two weeks ago. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent, and conservative bloggers are dubbing it "Climategate."
In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans Wednesday read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.
The exploding controversy led Phil Jones to step aside as head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.
"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue, said Holdren, a physicist who has studied climate change.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House global warming committee.
The hearing was supposed to focus on the latest in global warming scientific findings. Lubchenco even attempted a high school chemistry lesson with two quick experiments at the witness table. Donning one rubber glove, she demonstrated how adding carbon dioxide to water made it more acidic and said that is what's now happening in the world's oceans. Then she put chalk in acidic water compounds and showed it dissolving a bit, to demonstrate what will happen eventually to vital sea life.
But her bubble-inducing experiments were ignored in favor of the more explosive e-mails.
Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Holdren responded that the word "trick" did not mean manipulation of data, but about a "clever way" to tackle a problem. Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."
Defending the scientists, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said somehow the e-mails aren't stopping the Arctic from warming, the oceans from getting more acidic, and glaciers from melting. He sarcastically asked Holdren and Lubchenco if they were part of a global conspiracy that even included fictional movie villain organizations. Holdren, played along, saying he was not.
After complaining of "scientific fascism" and "scientific McCarthyism," Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."
What the e-mail, not read by Sensenbrenner, showed was that Holdren used ironic quotes around the word "Harvard" in describing two of his colleagues who are global warming skeptics. Holdren also had forwarded to other scientists an article he described as "for your entertainment" in which he was quoted as saying the two skeptics were "wrong." Holdren defended his e-mail.
Sensenbrenner attacked the work of Penn State's Mann, who is frequently brought up in the communications. Mann is the author of what is called the "hockey stick" theory, first described in the late 1990s. It suggested that the past 50 years had been the hottest in several centuries, if not 1,000 years, and that man-made global warming was to blame. That research was so controversial that the National Academy of Sciences studied the work in depth; it was used in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming.
Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann's hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann's theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann's methods but agreed with his results.
The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.
"The conclusions that we came to were essentially the same as the hockey stick" theory that Mann proposed, North told The Associated Press. North said even if Jones, Mann and others had done no research at all, the world would still be warming and scientists would still be able to show it.
Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails - Yahoo! News
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Rep. Miller Calls For Climategate Investigation
Representative Candice Miller has called for a Congressional investigation into the climategate scandal, saying that the deliberate destruction of data by scientists intimately involved in the UN IPCC in order to avoid FOIA requests was a “criminal act and blows away the whole foundation for the cap and trade legislation.
Miller made the case that climategate completely undermines the cap and trade legislation passed by Congress earlier this year, which would lead to massive outsourcing of jobs, redistribution of wealth to other countries as well as devastating the economy and states that rely on coal for electricity production, such as Michigan, for whom Miller is a representative.
“If cap and trade were to pass, Michigan’s economy would be devastated, but we were told that it had to happen because the alternative is worse, said Miller, before discussing climategate, noting that the content of the leaked emails has “blown away the scientific foundation for the man-made global warming theory.
“These troubling emails show that some of the most respected and quoted and published scientists have used “tricks to manipulate data, refused to release the data that is the foundation for their research, and they’ve attempted to silence any critics of their hypothesis, and even expressed dismay that they could not explain recent cooling taking place across the globe, said Miller.
Miller then quoted the most infamous emails including Phil Jones’ “hide the decline passage and Kevin Trenberth’s email, where he states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. Trenberth was a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change.
“An inconvenient truth that temperatures were declining required a “trick to hide it, noted Miller.
Speaking on the subject of how the emails expose how warmist scientists engaged in academic witch hunts to prevent studies they disagreed with from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, Miller summarized;
“Call those who disagree with their hypothesis “cranks because they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals and then when they are – to discredit the journal – in other words Mr. Speaker – the fix is in.
Miller then highlighted the deliberate destruction of raw climate data on behalf of the CRU scientists and their colleagues.
“The leader of the CRU for years refused to release source data and now they claim that the data was lost – you know it sounds to me like the old elementary excuse – ‘the dog ate my homework’ – that excuse didn’t work for 3rd graders and it’s certainly unacceptable for scientists who are asking us to totally upend our economy, said Miller.
Speaking on the subject of data that was deliberately destroyed in order to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, Miller stated, “that is not just bad science, that is a criminal act.
“Congress needs to hold hearings to this matter, we need to investigate these very troubling revelations – if we are to make policy that will profoundly impact our nation, that policy must be made on facts, not on articles of faith or manipulated data, concluded Miller.
Watch the video of Miller’s speech below, followed by Senator Inhofe’s comments on climategate made yesterday.
YouTube - Rep. Miller on ClimateGate and Cap and Trade
Inhofe raises Climategate at Senate hearing:
YouTube - Inhofe Raises Climategate at Senate Hearing
Representative Candice Miller has called for a Congressional investigation into the climategate scandal, saying that the deliberate destruction of data by scientists intimately involved in the UN IPCC in order to avoid FOIA requests was a “criminal act and blows away the whole foundation for the cap and trade legislation.
Miller made the case that climategate completely undermines the cap and trade legislation passed by Congress earlier this year, which would lead to massive outsourcing of jobs, redistribution of wealth to other countries as well as devastating the economy and states that rely on coal for electricity production, such as Michigan, for whom Miller is a representative.
“If cap and trade were to pass, Michigan’s economy would be devastated, but we were told that it had to happen because the alternative is worse, said Miller, before discussing climategate, noting that the content of the leaked emails has “blown away the scientific foundation for the man-made global warming theory.
“These troubling emails show that some of the most respected and quoted and published scientists have used “tricks to manipulate data, refused to release the data that is the foundation for their research, and they’ve attempted to silence any critics of their hypothesis, and even expressed dismay that they could not explain recent cooling taking place across the globe, said Miller.
Miller then quoted the most infamous emails including Phil Jones’ “hide the decline passage and Kevin Trenberth’s email, where he states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. Trenberth was a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change.
“An inconvenient truth that temperatures were declining required a “trick to hide it, noted Miller.
Speaking on the subject of how the emails expose how warmist scientists engaged in academic witch hunts to prevent studies they disagreed with from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, Miller summarized;
“Call those who disagree with their hypothesis “cranks because they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals and then when they are – to discredit the journal – in other words Mr. Speaker – the fix is in.
Miller then highlighted the deliberate destruction of raw climate data on behalf of the CRU scientists and their colleagues.
“The leader of the CRU for years refused to release source data and now they claim that the data was lost – you know it sounds to me like the old elementary excuse – ‘the dog ate my homework’ – that excuse didn’t work for 3rd graders and it’s certainly unacceptable for scientists who are asking us to totally upend our economy, said Miller.
Speaking on the subject of data that was deliberately destroyed in order to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, Miller stated, “that is not just bad science, that is a criminal act.
“Congress needs to hold hearings to this matter, we need to investigate these very troubling revelations – if we are to make policy that will profoundly impact our nation, that policy must be made on facts, not on articles of faith or manipulated data, concluded Miller.
Watch the video of Miller’s speech below, followed by Senator Inhofe’s comments on climategate made yesterday.
YouTube - Rep. Miller on ClimateGate and Cap and Trade
Inhofe raises Climategate at Senate hearing:
YouTube - Inhofe Raises Climategate at Senate Hearing
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
It’s Over, Al Gore.
Abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize, too.
Aaron Dykes
JonesReport.com
December 3, 2009
Al Gore has just cancelled a high-profile appearance at the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference only days after ‘ClimateGate’ revelations cast doubt on the legitimacy of the scientific ‘consensus’ ("hiding the decline" is not scientific in any respect). Just days ago, CRU director Phil Jones stepped down from his position at East Anglia University.
Further, Gore has been confronted by We Are Change and other groups at book signing events everywhere he goes– and apparently his only response to charges of fraud is to unleash his goons to drag out dissenters. Sounds like Eco-fascism to me. It’s easy to reach consensus when opponents are barred from the conversation (see video below).
The would-be ‘EcoProphet’ and media-darling Al Gore has been thoroughly discredited– along with the science-imposters of the highly-politicized IPCC — and now he is being prominently challenged by rising opposition to the Copenhagen carbon agenda. Lord Monckton has even called for Gore’s arrest.
Gore also apparently made a fool of himself during an appearance with Conan O’Brien a few days ago, as he tried to push the unpractical subterranean geothermal solution. Countless papers across the country have ridiculed his appearance, including headlines such as "Just How Stupid is Al Gore, Anyway?" in the Examiner.com, The Hill’s "Earth to Al Gore" and "Gore Pushes ‘Global Warming Scam’" in the Sioux City Journal.
Even the left-leaning Jon Stewart jabbed at "Poor Al Gore" on the popular Daily Show, mocking that "global warming [has been] debunked via the Internet YOU invented."
Former Vice President Al Gore– after decades of trying to censor free speech in rock music, pretending to invent the Internet and making phony promises that NAFTA ‘is good for America’– has been revealed not to be a friend of the earth, but, cynically, to be on schedule to become the ‘First Carbon Billionaire’ via his Goldman Sachs-partnered carbon trading empire (including Generation Investment Management, LLP and other firms).
Al Gore, it’s time to abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a scientific ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize, too.
Personally, I say you can keep the Oscar, as ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a veritable masterpiece in propaganda, though clearly the title and thrust of the film is almost completely deceptive. Your accolades can’t shake off the fact that the link to hurricanes & dead polar bears is false or that C02 levels follow temperature rises, not the other way around.
We have seen you throw fits in House Congressional hearings on "Climate Change" and witnessed your infantile "heavy breathing" over the microphone when points of opposition were raised by Congressmen such as Rep. Scalise. Heavy breathing and indignant sighs were the tactics you used in the face of adversity even decades back when you debated Ross Perot on NAFTA.
Al, you have had the audacity to challenge the very existence of your critics. You acted in concert with the IPCC, who readily booted out any and all of its scientific dissenters while you denied that any credible sources (including some 31,000 scientists and academics) disagreed with anthropogenic global warming. When ‘warming’ didn’t work, you took part in re-branding the effort as "climate change."
So please Gore, just stop. The debate is over, when it comes to your legitimacy in the public forum. Even the corporate-controlled media can no longer ignore the scale of your deception. In earlier days of American history, you would likely have been tarred-and-feathered.
You should have left the scene after leaving office as Vice President. Now the world knows you are a treasonous fraud working to enrich yourself, undermine U.S. sovereignty, bind the peoples of the world under outrageous cap & trade regulations and pursue "global governance."
If now find you have egg on your face, your tail between your legs or the smug smell of B.S. on your breath, it is because free humanity can see that the Eco-Emperor has no clothes (like a few other leaders I can think of). Canceling your events and running for cover was the right move. America has every right to regard you as an enemy.
Just don’t stop running, or history may recognize you for the villain you are. Like a snake-oil charlatan from a Mark Twain novel, it’s time to skip town before the townspeople catch up to you. The best advice I can offer is to recognize when you are beat, and get the hell out of Dogde.
Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago:
YouTube - Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago
John Steward talks Climate Change:
YouTube - Jon Stewart Talks Climategate
YouTube - Climate-Gate (Alex Jones)
JONES REPORT :: Alex Jones Presents the Truth in Black and White
Abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize, too.
Aaron Dykes
JonesReport.com
December 3, 2009
Al Gore has just cancelled a high-profile appearance at the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference only days after ‘ClimateGate’ revelations cast doubt on the legitimacy of the scientific ‘consensus’ ("hiding the decline" is not scientific in any respect). Just days ago, CRU director Phil Jones stepped down from his position at East Anglia University.
Further, Gore has been confronted by We Are Change and other groups at book signing events everywhere he goes– and apparently his only response to charges of fraud is to unleash his goons to drag out dissenters. Sounds like Eco-fascism to me. It’s easy to reach consensus when opponents are barred from the conversation (see video below).
The would-be ‘EcoProphet’ and media-darling Al Gore has been thoroughly discredited– along with the science-imposters of the highly-politicized IPCC — and now he is being prominently challenged by rising opposition to the Copenhagen carbon agenda. Lord Monckton has even called for Gore’s arrest.
Gore also apparently made a fool of himself during an appearance with Conan O’Brien a few days ago, as he tried to push the unpractical subterranean geothermal solution. Countless papers across the country have ridiculed his appearance, including headlines such as "Just How Stupid is Al Gore, Anyway?" in the Examiner.com, The Hill’s "Earth to Al Gore" and "Gore Pushes ‘Global Warming Scam’" in the Sioux City Journal.
Even the left-leaning Jon Stewart jabbed at "Poor Al Gore" on the popular Daily Show, mocking that "global warming [has been] debunked via the Internet YOU invented."
Former Vice President Al Gore– after decades of trying to censor free speech in rock music, pretending to invent the Internet and making phony promises that NAFTA ‘is good for America’– has been revealed not to be a friend of the earth, but, cynically, to be on schedule to become the ‘First Carbon Billionaire’ via his Goldman Sachs-partnered carbon trading empire (including Generation Investment Management, LLP and other firms).
Al Gore, it’s time to abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a scientific ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize, too.
Personally, I say you can keep the Oscar, as ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a veritable masterpiece in propaganda, though clearly the title and thrust of the film is almost completely deceptive. Your accolades can’t shake off the fact that the link to hurricanes & dead polar bears is false or that C02 levels follow temperature rises, not the other way around.
We have seen you throw fits in House Congressional hearings on "Climate Change" and witnessed your infantile "heavy breathing" over the microphone when points of opposition were raised by Congressmen such as Rep. Scalise. Heavy breathing and indignant sighs were the tactics you used in the face of adversity even decades back when you debated Ross Perot on NAFTA.
Al, you have had the audacity to challenge the very existence of your critics. You acted in concert with the IPCC, who readily booted out any and all of its scientific dissenters while you denied that any credible sources (including some 31,000 scientists and academics) disagreed with anthropogenic global warming. When ‘warming’ didn’t work, you took part in re-branding the effort as "climate change."
So please Gore, just stop. The debate is over, when it comes to your legitimacy in the public forum. Even the corporate-controlled media can no longer ignore the scale of your deception. In earlier days of American history, you would likely have been tarred-and-feathered.
You should have left the scene after leaving office as Vice President. Now the world knows you are a treasonous fraud working to enrich yourself, undermine U.S. sovereignty, bind the peoples of the world under outrageous cap & trade regulations and pursue "global governance."
If now find you have egg on your face, your tail between your legs or the smug smell of B.S. on your breath, it is because free humanity can see that the Eco-Emperor has no clothes (like a few other leaders I can think of). Canceling your events and running for cover was the right move. America has every right to regard you as an enemy.
Just don’t stop running, or history may recognize you for the villain you are. Like a snake-oil charlatan from a Mark Twain novel, it’s time to skip town before the townspeople catch up to you. The best advice I can offer is to recognize when you are beat, and get the hell out of Dogde.
Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago:
YouTube - Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago
John Steward talks Climate Change:
YouTube - Jon Stewart Talks Climategate
YouTube - Climate-Gate (Alex Jones)
JONES REPORT :: Alex Jones Presents the Truth in Black and White
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Australian Senate Votes Down Carbon Laws
Peter Smith
Financial Times
December 2, 2009
The Australian government plans to reintroduce its emission trading scheme to the parliament for a third time in February after a hostile Senate voted down the legislation on Wednesday.
However, Julia Gillard, acting prime minister, said the Labor government did not plan to call an early election on the issue even though the second Senate rejection had given it the power to do so.
“The prime minister [Kevin Rudd], on a number occasions, has said it’s his intention to have the parliament go full term, she said. “[He] has also said that he is determined to see this legislation pass the parliament."
FT.com / Asia-Pacific - Australia carbon laws fail to pass Senate
Peter Smith
Financial Times
December 2, 2009
The Australian government plans to reintroduce its emission trading scheme to the parliament for a third time in February after a hostile Senate voted down the legislation on Wednesday.
However, Julia Gillard, acting prime minister, said the Labor government did not plan to call an early election on the issue even though the second Senate rejection had given it the power to do so.
“The prime minister [Kevin Rudd], on a number occasions, has said it’s his intention to have the parliament go full term, she said. “[He] has also said that he is determined to see this legislation pass the parliament."
FT.com / Asia-Pacific - Australia carbon laws fail to pass Senate
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
China, Developing Nations Reject Copenhagen Climate Plan
Krittivas Mukherjee and Gerard Wynn
Reuters
December 2, 2009
China and other big developing nations rejected core targets for a climate deal such as halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 just five days before talks start in Copenhagen, diplomats said on Wednesday.
China, the world’s top emitter, together with India, Brazil and South Africa demand that richer nations do more and have drawn “red lines limiting what they themselves would accept, the diplomats told Reuters.
The four rejected key targets proposed by the Danish climate talks hosts in a draft text — halving global greenhouse gases by 2050, setting a 2020 deadline for a peak in world emissions, and limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, European diplomats said.
China, Developing Nations Reject Copenhagen Climate Plan
Krittivas Mukherjee and Gerard Wynn
Reuters
December 2, 2009
China and other big developing nations rejected core targets for a climate deal such as halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 just five days before talks start in Copenhagen, diplomats said on Wednesday.
China, the world’s top emitter, together with India, Brazil and South Africa demand that richer nations do more and have drawn “red lines limiting what they themselves would accept, the diplomats told Reuters.
The four rejected key targets proposed by the Danish climate talks hosts in a draft text — halving global greenhouse gases by 2050, setting a 2020 deadline for a peak in world emissions, and limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, European diplomats said.
China, Developing Nations Reject Copenhagen Climate Plan
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud
Bill Myers
Washington Examiner
December 3, 2009
A former top climate scientist who had become of one the scientific world’s most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth’s atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday after pleading guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife’s company.
In addition to a year’s probation, former NASA manager Mark Schoeberl, 60, of Silver Spring, was also fined $10,000 and ordered to put in 50 hours of community service. He admitted in the late summer that he had hid some $50,000 in NASA contracts for a company called Animated Earth, which was run by Schoeberl’s wife, Barbara. Prosecutors alleged that Schoeberl tried to help his wife’s firm for years. When his colleagues balked at giving no-bid contracts to his wife’s firm, Schoeberl pressured them to steer money to his wife through indirect means.
Schoeberl was the chief scientist of the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Earth Sciences Division and the head of the Aura Project, a NASA mission to study the Earth’s ozone layer, air quality and climate. He has written extensively about the depletion of the ozone level, and the influence of humans on global climate change
Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud | Washington Examiner
Bill Myers
Washington Examiner
December 3, 2009
A former top climate scientist who had become of one the scientific world’s most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth’s atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday after pleading guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife’s company.
In addition to a year’s probation, former NASA manager Mark Schoeberl, 60, of Silver Spring, was also fined $10,000 and ordered to put in 50 hours of community service. He admitted in the late summer that he had hid some $50,000 in NASA contracts for a company called Animated Earth, which was run by Schoeberl’s wife, Barbara. Prosecutors alleged that Schoeberl tried to help his wife’s firm for years. When his colleagues balked at giving no-bid contracts to his wife’s firm, Schoeberl pressured them to steer money to his wife through indirect means.
Schoeberl was the chief scientist of the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Earth Sciences Division and the head of the Aura Project, a NASA mission to study the Earth’s ozone layer, air quality and climate. He has written extensively about the depletion of the ozone level, and the influence of humans on global climate change
Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud | Washington Examiner
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Now Scientists Say Earth May Experience “Sudden Ice Age
Charles Q. Choi
MSNBC
December 2, 2009
In the film, “The Day After Tomorrow, the world gets gripped in ice within the span of just a few weeks. Now research now suggests an eerily similar event might indeed have occurred in the past.
Looking ahead to the future, there is no reason why such a freeze shouldn’t happen again — and in ironic fashion it could be precipitated if ongoing changes in climate force the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly melt, scientists say.
Starting roughly 12,800 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere was gripped by a chill that lasted some 1,300 years. Known by scientists as the Younger Dryas and nicknamed the“Big Freeze, geological evidence suggests it was brought on when a vast pulse of fresh water — a greater volume than all of North America’s Great Lakes combined — poured into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.
Earth could plunge into sudden ice age - LiveScience- msnbc.com
Charles Q. Choi
MSNBC
December 2, 2009
In the film, “The Day After Tomorrow, the world gets gripped in ice within the span of just a few weeks. Now research now suggests an eerily similar event might indeed have occurred in the past.
Looking ahead to the future, there is no reason why such a freeze shouldn’t happen again — and in ironic fashion it could be precipitated if ongoing changes in climate force the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly melt, scientists say.
Starting roughly 12,800 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere was gripped by a chill that lasted some 1,300 years. Known by scientists as the Younger Dryas and nicknamed the“Big Freeze, geological evidence suggests it was brought on when a vast pulse of fresh water — a greater volume than all of North America’s Great Lakes combined — poured into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.
Earth could plunge into sudden ice age - LiveScience- msnbc.com
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture — leaves ticketholders in a lurch
Watts Up With That
December 3, 2009
It seems the uncertainty about Copenhagen is growing. When Al baby pulls the plug, you know it’s hosed.
From Berlingske: Al Gore cancels lecture during COP15.
Former U.S. vice president has canceled his event, more than 3,000 Danes have purchased a ticket. Photo: JOSE MENDEZ
Looks like they will get a refund though. Might be worth more as a collectors item in ten years though.
I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?
From the Washington Post:
“Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference, notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote “Our Choice, his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities.
“Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack.
Wait, what? How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion says it all, too: 5,999 Danish kroners is equivalent to $1,209.
“If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199-1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit, the practical Danes advise. “There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view.
Yah, such a deal.
Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch Watts Up With That?
Watts Up With That
December 3, 2009
It seems the uncertainty about Copenhagen is growing. When Al baby pulls the plug, you know it’s hosed.
From Berlingske: Al Gore cancels lecture during COP15.
Former U.S. vice president has canceled his event, more than 3,000 Danes have purchased a ticket. Photo: JOSE MENDEZ
Looks like they will get a refund though. Might be worth more as a collectors item in ten years though.
I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?
From the Washington Post:
“Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference, notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote “Our Choice, his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities.
“Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack.
Wait, what? How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion says it all, too: 5,999 Danish kroners is equivalent to $1,209.
“If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199-1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit, the practical Danes advise. “There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view.
Yah, such a deal.
Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch Watts Up With That?
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Obama’s ‘Prestige’ on the Line in Copenhagen, With Climate Deal Far From Certain
Fox News
December 2, 2009
Analysts say that while President Obama might help strike a broadly worded climate change deal in Copenhagen, a legally binding replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol may be just as unlikely after his visit as before.
President Obama’s plans for seeking an international agreement at a U.N. climate change conference next week sound precariously similar to his plans for pitching Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics two months ago.
At both meetings, the president scheduled very brief appearances, planning to arrive early and be long gone before any decision was reached. And, coincidentally, the destination in both cases was Copenhagen, Denmark.
FOXNews.com - Obama's 'Prestige' on the Line in Copenhagen, With Climate Deal Far From Certain
Fox News
December 2, 2009
Analysts say that while President Obama might help strike a broadly worded climate change deal in Copenhagen, a legally binding replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol may be just as unlikely after his visit as before.
President Obama’s plans for seeking an international agreement at a U.N. climate change conference next week sound precariously similar to his plans for pitching Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics two months ago.
At both meetings, the president scheduled very brief appearances, planning to arrive early and be long gone before any decision was reached. And, coincidentally, the destination in both cases was Copenhagen, Denmark.
FOXNews.com - Obama's 'Prestige' on the Line in Copenhagen, With Climate Deal Far From Certain
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Inhofe Requests Hearings on Climategate
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
December 2, 2009
Washington, D.C.—Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, sent a letter today to EPW Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) requesting hearings on the recent disclosure of emails between some of the world’s most preeminent climatologists—emails that reveal apparent attempts to manipulate data, vilify scientists with opposing viewpoints, and circumvent information disclosure laws.
“The emails reveal possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program and the IPCC, Inhofe wrote. “For instance, one scientist wrote of a ‘trick’ he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports.
This controversy “could have far-reaching policy implications, Inhofe continued, “affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs, and “the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’¦ These policies “will have enormous economic impacts, not least the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, which, when finalized, will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses.
The full text of the letter follows:
December 1, 2009
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
410 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6175
Dear Chairman Boxer:
The recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists—including the authors of temperature records used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—raises a number of issues, including the following: 1) potential violations of federal and state information disclosure laws; 2) a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science; 3) an apparent coordinated effort to distort and falsify data; and 4) the appearance of a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism.
The emails reveal apparent deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by, among others, the US Global Change Research Program and the IPCC. For instance, one scientist wrote of a “trick he employed to “hide the decline in global temperature trends; he also discussed attempts to “redefine what the peer-review literature is to prevent papers questioning global warming alarmism from appearing in IPCC reports. Another scientist stated, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t. Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.
In addition to these issues, the emails could have far-reaching policy implications, affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs, the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the US Global Change Research Program, global climate models used by federal agencies, the Department of Interior’s coordinated strategy to address climate change impacts, and international climate change negotiations.
Many of these policies and positions will have enormous economic impacts, not least the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, which, when finalized, will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses. The same can be said for cap-and-trade legislation, including the very bill you introduced and reported to the full Senate, as well as the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House in June.
In short, the stakes involved are of major consequence, and so I respectfully request that you hold hearings to examine the suite of issues involved, including whether laws were broken, key studies compromised, proposed regulations undermined, and taxpayer-funded climate change research deliberately obscured or manipulated. I am encouraged that the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will examine at least some of these issues in a hearing tomorrow. As we have on other issues before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I look forward to working together on this important matter.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works
YouTube - FoxNews - Climategate Provides Vindication for Inhofe on Global Warming
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
December 2, 2009
Washington, D.C.—Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, sent a letter today to EPW Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) requesting hearings on the recent disclosure of emails between some of the world’s most preeminent climatologists—emails that reveal apparent attempts to manipulate data, vilify scientists with opposing viewpoints, and circumvent information disclosure laws.
“The emails reveal possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program and the IPCC, Inhofe wrote. “For instance, one scientist wrote of a ‘trick’ he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports.
This controversy “could have far-reaching policy implications, Inhofe continued, “affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs, and “the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’¦ These policies “will have enormous economic impacts, not least the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, which, when finalized, will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses.
The full text of the letter follows:
December 1, 2009
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
410 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6175
Dear Chairman Boxer:
The recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists—including the authors of temperature records used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—raises a number of issues, including the following: 1) potential violations of federal and state information disclosure laws; 2) a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science; 3) an apparent coordinated effort to distort and falsify data; and 4) the appearance of a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism.
The emails reveal apparent deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by, among others, the US Global Change Research Program and the IPCC. For instance, one scientist wrote of a “trick he employed to “hide the decline in global temperature trends; he also discussed attempts to “redefine what the peer-review literature is to prevent papers questioning global warming alarmism from appearing in IPCC reports. Another scientist stated, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t. Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.
In addition to these issues, the emails could have far-reaching policy implications, affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs, the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the US Global Change Research Program, global climate models used by federal agencies, the Department of Interior’s coordinated strategy to address climate change impacts, and international climate change negotiations.
Many of these policies and positions will have enormous economic impacts, not least the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, which, when finalized, will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses. The same can be said for cap-and-trade legislation, including the very bill you introduced and reported to the full Senate, as well as the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House in June.
In short, the stakes involved are of major consequence, and so I respectfully request that you hold hearings to examine the suite of issues involved, including whether laws were broken, key studies compromised, proposed regulations undermined, and taxpayer-funded climate change research deliberately obscured or manipulated. I am encouraged that the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will examine at least some of these issues in a hearing tomorrow. As we have on other issues before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I look forward to working together on this important matter.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works
YouTube - FoxNews - Climategate Provides Vindication for Inhofe on Global Warming
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climategate Investigator Is Member Of Vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization
A civil servant who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science.
Meanwhile, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has ludicrously announced that it will conduct its own investigation into the climategate scandal, despite the fact that the suspects involved have intimate ties to the IPCC, with one of the primary scientists accused of manipulating climate data being a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.
“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for assessing climate change science, reports the Daily Mail.
IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri told the BBC the claims were serious and he wanted them investigated.
“We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it,’ he said.
“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.
Having the IPCC investigate climategate would be like Ken Lay heading up the Enron enquiry.
One of the primary climategate suspects, Kevin Trenberth, is a lead IPCC author, having been influential in crafting the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.
Professor Phil Jones, who infamously wrote of the need to “hide the decline in global warming, is also a primary IPCC contributor, having been in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.
In addition, another climategate suspect, Michael Mann, was the creator of the debunked “hockey stick graph, which was “Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher than they are today.
There is little pretense about the fact that the UN will merely absolve its own scientists of blame, the larger scam is the notion that civil servant Sir (Alastair) Muir Russell, who has been picked to head the investigation into East Anglia University, after an earlier trial balloon to have the inquiry headed by warmist advocate Lord Rees was shot down, is impartial, when he is a member of The Royal Society of Edinburgh, a vehemently pro-man made global warming organization.
“As a measure of how out of touch UEA is, they apparently have little idea that the title “former civil servant does not inspire much confidence from skeptics, since it has been “civil servants who have been blocking access to the data and procedures all along, writes Anthony Watts.
Russell has pitched himself as someone with “no links to either the university or the climate science community, yet he is firmly a member of the academic establishment, being the former Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow.
Russell is the quintessential establishment lackey, having been appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2001.
There’s little doubt that Russell is an establishment insider who has been tasked with whitewashing the whole affair. He is a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, an offshoot of the same organization that Lord Rees is a part of. The Royal Society of Edinburgh “provides annual grants totaling over half a million pounds for research in Scottish universities, a sizeable portion of which goes to research attempting to validify claims about man-made global warming.
The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.
This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
A February 2009 response to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill outlines the organization’s staunch advocacy for the hypothesis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
Earlier this year, The Royal Society of Edinburgh elected Professor Peter Smith to become one of its members. Smith just happens to be the Convening Lead Author of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. He has also been a lead author for numerous other IPCC reports over the past thirteen years.
How can a proud member of an organization that is aggressively pushing measures to cut CO2 in the name of halting alleged man-made global warming, while also having a direct relationship with the UN IPCC, bill himself as being totally impartial and unconnected to climate science?
The climategate scandal has grown wings and taken flight. This is a scandal within a scandal, the notion that the very crooks caught manipulating data can appoint their own allies to “investigate their wrongdoing and think nothing of it, while claiming that such individuals are impartial and independent, is beyond belief.
The only real investigation of climategate has to occur at the congressional or parliamentary level, preferably both, and it has to be completely open and transparent – not sneakily wrapped up behind closed doors by organizations like the IPCC and members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, both of whom have a massive stake in protecting and upholding the entire climate change fraud.
Climategate Investigator Is Member Of Vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization
A civil servant who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science.
Meanwhile, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has ludicrously announced that it will conduct its own investigation into the climategate scandal, despite the fact that the suspects involved have intimate ties to the IPCC, with one of the primary scientists accused of manipulating climate data being a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.
“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for assessing climate change science, reports the Daily Mail.
IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri told the BBC the claims were serious and he wanted them investigated.
“We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it,’ he said.
“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.
Having the IPCC investigate climategate would be like Ken Lay heading up the Enron enquiry.
One of the primary climategate suspects, Kevin Trenberth, is a lead IPCC author, having been influential in crafting the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.
Professor Phil Jones, who infamously wrote of the need to “hide the decline in global warming, is also a primary IPCC contributor, having been in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.
In addition, another climategate suspect, Michael Mann, was the creator of the debunked “hockey stick graph, which was “Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher than they are today.
There is little pretense about the fact that the UN will merely absolve its own scientists of blame, the larger scam is the notion that civil servant Sir (Alastair) Muir Russell, who has been picked to head the investigation into East Anglia University, after an earlier trial balloon to have the inquiry headed by warmist advocate Lord Rees was shot down, is impartial, when he is a member of The Royal Society of Edinburgh, a vehemently pro-man made global warming organization.
“As a measure of how out of touch UEA is, they apparently have little idea that the title “former civil servant does not inspire much confidence from skeptics, since it has been “civil servants who have been blocking access to the data and procedures all along, writes Anthony Watts.
Russell has pitched himself as someone with “no links to either the university or the climate science community, yet he is firmly a member of the academic establishment, being the former Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow.
Russell is the quintessential establishment lackey, having been appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2001.
There’s little doubt that Russell is an establishment insider who has been tasked with whitewashing the whole affair. He is a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, an offshoot of the same organization that Lord Rees is a part of. The Royal Society of Edinburgh “provides annual grants totaling over half a million pounds for research in Scottish universities, a sizeable portion of which goes to research attempting to validify claims about man-made global warming.
The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.
This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
A February 2009 response to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill outlines the organization’s staunch advocacy for the hypothesis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
Earlier this year, The Royal Society of Edinburgh elected Professor Peter Smith to become one of its members. Smith just happens to be the Convening Lead Author of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. He has also been a lead author for numerous other IPCC reports over the past thirteen years.
How can a proud member of an organization that is aggressively pushing measures to cut CO2 in the name of halting alleged man-made global warming, while also having a direct relationship with the UN IPCC, bill himself as being totally impartial and unconnected to climate science?
The climategate scandal has grown wings and taken flight. This is a scandal within a scandal, the notion that the very crooks caught manipulating data can appoint their own allies to “investigate their wrongdoing and think nothing of it, while claiming that such individuals are impartial and independent, is beyond belief.
The only real investigation of climategate has to occur at the congressional or parliamentary level, preferably both, and it has to be completely open and transparent – not sneakily wrapped up behind closed doors by organizations like the IPCC and members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, both of whom have a massive stake in protecting and upholding the entire climate change fraud.
Climategate Investigator Is Member Of Vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Rep. Issa: Obama’s refusal to investigate ‘Climategate’ emails is ‘unconscionable’
The U.N.’s decision this week to investigate whether some of its climate change research had been manipulated constitutes a “direct rebuke of the Obama administration, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Friday.
The White House’s unwillingness to open a similar inquiry could now only be characterized as “a sad abdication of their responsibility to ensure that U.S. policies are not driven by corrupted science and data, the congressman added.
“The very integrity of the report that the Obama administration has predicated much of its climate change policy has been called into question and it is unconscionable that this administration and Congress is willing to abdicate responsibility of uncovering the truth to the United Nations, explained Issa, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Rep. Issa: Obama's refusal to investigate 'Climategate' emails is 'unconscionable' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
The U.N.’s decision this week to investigate whether some of its climate change research had been manipulated constitutes a “direct rebuke of the Obama administration, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Friday.
The White House’s unwillingness to open a similar inquiry could now only be characterized as “a sad abdication of their responsibility to ensure that U.S. policies are not driven by corrupted science and data, the congressman added.
“The very integrity of the report that the Obama administration has predicated much of its climate change policy has been called into question and it is unconscionable that this administration and Congress is willing to abdicate responsibility of uncovering the truth to the United Nations, explained Issa, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Rep. Issa: Obama's refusal to investigate 'Climategate' emails is 'unconscionable' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Universally Reviled & Unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown Calls Global Warming Skeptics “Flat Earthers
James Kirkup and Louise Gray
London Telegraph
Friday, December 4, 2009
Comment: The universally reviled and unelected British Prime Minister attaches himself to the climategate crooks who are helping to build the “new world order that Brown routinely calls for – therefore it’s little surprise that these tyrants are as thick as thieves in their efforts to protect their malthusian carbon tax agenda at all costs.
People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers and “anti-science, Gordon Brown has said.
The Prime Minister launched an outspoken attack on climate-change sceptics amid growing signs of public doubts about the scientific and political consensus on the environment.
World leaders meet in Copenhagen next week seeking a global deal on cutting carbon emissions. But the debate has been clouded by a row over accusations that British scientists manipulated data on global temperatures.
Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled, and accused those who question the consensus of being outdated.
He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do."
Gordon Brown: climate-change sceptics are 'flat-earthers' - Telegraph
James Kirkup and Louise Gray
London Telegraph
Friday, December 4, 2009
Comment: The universally reviled and unelected British Prime Minister attaches himself to the climategate crooks who are helping to build the “new world order that Brown routinely calls for – therefore it’s little surprise that these tyrants are as thick as thieves in their efforts to protect their malthusian carbon tax agenda at all costs.
People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers and “anti-science, Gordon Brown has said.
The Prime Minister launched an outspoken attack on climate-change sceptics amid growing signs of public doubts about the scientific and political consensus on the environment.
World leaders meet in Copenhagen next week seeking a global deal on cutting carbon emissions. But the debate has been clouded by a row over accusations that British scientists manipulated data on global temperatures.
Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled, and accused those who question the consensus of being outdated.
He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do."
Gordon Brown: climate-change sceptics are 'flat-earthers' - Telegraph
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Al Gore’s Crumbling Credibility Cracked By Climategate
“Super cereal carbon billionaire has about as much integrity left as his South Park caricature
It has not been a good month for Al Gore. If I wanted to enter an understatement of the year contest I’m pretty sure that one would win.
Citing “unforeseen circumstances, Gore has been forced to cancel an event in Copenhagen that he was due to speak at ahead of the climate change talks next week.
Ticket holders who had paid up to $1200 each for the event, ironically titled “Climate Conclusion, will be forced to seek refunds.
The circumstances that have forced Gore to keep a low profile are almost certainly related to the climategate scandal, which is now the most viral topic on the internet.
Research presented here by Richard North shows that the ratio between the number of general web pages on Google and the number of news reports recorded puts climategate way in front of Afghanistan, Tiger Woods and Obama in terms of general interest.
It is also no coincidence that Gore has been confronted on several occasions in the past few days.
From Portland to Chicago, almost everywhere Gore has made a public appearance lately, he has been booed, protested and challenged by alert Americans who are refusing to go along with his fearmongering assertions:
From his direct connections to Maurice Strong to his mansion that uses 20 times the energy of the average American home, people are finally waking up to the fact that the world’s first Carbon billionaire is perhaps not the right guy to be listening to when it comes to theories of climate change.
Photoshopping hurricanes, melting ice caps and mass flooding onto the front cover of his latest book, Our Choice; A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis hasn’t impressed too many people either. The inside of the book, which still maintains a thoroughly disproved hurricane-climate link, proves that in this case you really can judge a book by it’s cover.
Two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have even called for Gore’s 2007 Oscar to be rescinded in light of climategate and the further inaccuracies uncovered within An Inconvenient Truth, in addition to the nine factual errors a British court has declared.
“In the history of the academy, not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. I think they should rescind this one, academy member Roger L. Simon said Thursday.
A less than flattering appearance on the Conan O’Brien show a few days ago, where Gore struggled to explain exactly what a “subterranean geothermal solution is, led a chorus of newspapers to print headlines such as “Just How Stupid is Al Gore, Anyway?, “Earth to Al Gore and “Gore Pushes ‘Global Warming Scam’ in the Sioux City Journal.
The height of mockery ensued on The Daily Show with John Stewart quipping “global warming [has been] debunked via the Internet YOU invented.
Gore has literally become as foolish in the eyes of the world as his ManBearPig hunting South Park caricature. Then again he did promise that he was going to “start acting crazy“, clearly he wasn’t joking.
The tangible fallout of climategate is clear for all to see. Gore is a laughing stock and the conference on Global Climate, the only goal of which is to implement a global carbon tax, has already been dubbed a miserable failure.
Furthermore, on Tuesday, Australia’s Senate voted against their Carbon Trading bill, a measure that spurred the opposition party to install a new leader who has vowed to reject the proposal outright. Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, now faces an early election.
In addition a survey from Rasumssen Reports yesterday shows that 59% of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.
YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 4/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts!
YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 5/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts!
YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 6/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts!
Al Gore’s Crumbling Credibility Cracked By Climategate
“Super cereal carbon billionaire has about as much integrity left as his South Park caricature
It has not been a good month for Al Gore. If I wanted to enter an understatement of the year contest I’m pretty sure that one would win.
Citing “unforeseen circumstances, Gore has been forced to cancel an event in Copenhagen that he was due to speak at ahead of the climate change talks next week.
Ticket holders who had paid up to $1200 each for the event, ironically titled “Climate Conclusion, will be forced to seek refunds.
The circumstances that have forced Gore to keep a low profile are almost certainly related to the climategate scandal, which is now the most viral topic on the internet.
Research presented here by Richard North shows that the ratio between the number of general web pages on Google and the number of news reports recorded puts climategate way in front of Afghanistan, Tiger Woods and Obama in terms of general interest.
It is also no coincidence that Gore has been confronted on several occasions in the past few days.
From Portland to Chicago, almost everywhere Gore has made a public appearance lately, he has been booed, protested and challenged by alert Americans who are refusing to go along with his fearmongering assertions:
From his direct connections to Maurice Strong to his mansion that uses 20 times the energy of the average American home, people are finally waking up to the fact that the world’s first Carbon billionaire is perhaps not the right guy to be listening to when it comes to theories of climate change.
Photoshopping hurricanes, melting ice caps and mass flooding onto the front cover of his latest book, Our Choice; A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis hasn’t impressed too many people either. The inside of the book, which still maintains a thoroughly disproved hurricane-climate link, proves that in this case you really can judge a book by it’s cover.
Two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have even called for Gore’s 2007 Oscar to be rescinded in light of climategate and the further inaccuracies uncovered within An Inconvenient Truth, in addition to the nine factual errors a British court has declared.
“In the history of the academy, not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. I think they should rescind this one, academy member Roger L. Simon said Thursday.
A less than flattering appearance on the Conan O’Brien show a few days ago, where Gore struggled to explain exactly what a “subterranean geothermal solution is, led a chorus of newspapers to print headlines such as “Just How Stupid is Al Gore, Anyway?, “Earth to Al Gore and “Gore Pushes ‘Global Warming Scam’ in the Sioux City Journal.
The height of mockery ensued on The Daily Show with John Stewart quipping “global warming [has been] debunked via the Internet YOU invented.
Gore has literally become as foolish in the eyes of the world as his ManBearPig hunting South Park caricature. Then again he did promise that he was going to “start acting crazy“, clearly he wasn’t joking.
The tangible fallout of climategate is clear for all to see. Gore is a laughing stock and the conference on Global Climate, the only goal of which is to implement a global carbon tax, has already been dubbed a miserable failure.
Furthermore, on Tuesday, Australia’s Senate voted against their Carbon Trading bill, a measure that spurred the opposition party to install a new leader who has vowed to reject the proposal outright. Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, now faces an early election.
In addition a survey from Rasumssen Reports yesterday shows that 59% of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.
YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 4/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts!
YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 5/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts!
YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 6/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts!
Al Gore’s Crumbling Credibility Cracked By Climategate
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Why are you so obsessed with this, TB?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climategate: The Smoking Code
Watts Up With That?
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner
I’m coming to you today as a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming.
If you don’t know anything about “Climategate” (does anyone else hate that name?) Go ahead and read up on it before you check out this post, I’ll wait.
Back? Let’s get started.
First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical ******* who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.
Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
1 ;
2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3 ;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
What does this Mean? A review of the code line-by-line
Starting off Easy
Lines 1-3 are comments
Line 4
yrloc is a 20 element array containing:
1400 and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years…
yrloc = [1400, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1924, 1929, ... , 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994]
findgen() creates a floating-point array of the specified dimension. Each element of the array is set to the value of its one-dimensional subscript
F = indgen(6) ;F[0] is 0.0, F[1] is 1.0….. F[6] is 6.0
Pretty straightforward, right?
Line 5
valadj, or, the “fudge factor” array as some arrogant programmer likes to call it is the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. It contains twenty values of seemingly random numbers. We’ll get back to this later.
Line 6
Just a check to make sure that yrloc and valadj have the same number of attributes in them. This is important for line 8.
Line 8
This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.
The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.
The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.
What the heck does all of this mean?
Well, I’m glad you asked. First, let’s plot the values in the valadj array.
Look familiar? This closely resembles the infamous hockey stick graph that Michael Mann came up with about a decade ago. By the way, did I mention Michael Mann is one of the “scientists” (and I use that word loosely) caught up in this scandal?
Here is Mann’s graph from 1999
As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.
Where do we go from here?
It’s not as cut-and-try as one might think. First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce.
This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing.
If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.
Conclusion
I tried to write this post in a manner that transcends politics. I really haven’t taken much of an interest in the whole global warming debate and don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter. However, being part of the Science Community (I have a degree in Physics) and having done scientific research myself makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations.
What do you think?
Now that you have the facts, you can come to your own conclusion!
Be sure to leave me a comment, it gets lonely in here sometimes.
hat tip to WUWT commenter “Disquisitive”
Climategate: The Smoking Code Watts Up With That?
Watts Up With That?
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner
I’m coming to you today as a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming.
If you don’t know anything about “Climategate” (does anyone else hate that name?) Go ahead and read up on it before you check out this post, I’ll wait.
Back? Let’s get started.
First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical ******* who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.
Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
1 ;
2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3 ;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
What does this Mean? A review of the code line-by-line
Starting off Easy
Lines 1-3 are comments
Line 4
yrloc is a 20 element array containing:
1400 and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years…
yrloc = [1400, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1924, 1929, ... , 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994]
findgen() creates a floating-point array of the specified dimension. Each element of the array is set to the value of its one-dimensional subscript
F = indgen(6) ;F[0] is 0.0, F[1] is 1.0….. F[6] is 6.0
Pretty straightforward, right?
Line 5
valadj, or, the “fudge factor” array as some arrogant programmer likes to call it is the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. It contains twenty values of seemingly random numbers. We’ll get back to this later.
Line 6
Just a check to make sure that yrloc and valadj have the same number of attributes in them. This is important for line 8.
Line 8
This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.
The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.
The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.
What the heck does all of this mean?
Well, I’m glad you asked. First, let’s plot the values in the valadj array.
Look familiar? This closely resembles the infamous hockey stick graph that Michael Mann came up with about a decade ago. By the way, did I mention Michael Mann is one of the “scientists” (and I use that word loosely) caught up in this scandal?
Here is Mann’s graph from 1999
As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.
Where do we go from here?
It’s not as cut-and-try as one might think. First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce.
This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing.
If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.
Conclusion
I tried to write this post in a manner that transcends politics. I really haven’t taken much of an interest in the whole global warming debate and don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter. However, being part of the Science Community (I have a degree in Physics) and having done scientific research myself makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations.
What do you think?
Now that you have the facts, you can come to your own conclusion!
Be sure to leave me a comment, it gets lonely in here sometimes.
hat tip to WUWT commenter “Disquisitive”
Climategate: The Smoking Code Watts Up With That?
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
I'll try again!
Why are you so obsessed with this, TB?
Why are you so obsessed with this, TB?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climategate: CBC on the greatest scientific scandal of our times
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
Rex Murphy of CBC gets it. A lesson for Australian TV talking heads on not just the importance of the scandal, but how it can inspire compelling TV comment, too.
More evidence on Monday of readers’ hunger for news that the mainstream media here is running dead on. It’s news I’m rather pleased by.
YouTube - Rex Murphy on Climategate
Climategate: CBC on the greatest scientific scandal of our times | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
Rex Murphy of CBC gets it. A lesson for Australian TV talking heads on not just the importance of the scandal, but how it can inspire compelling TV comment, too.
More evidence on Monday of readers’ hunger for news that the mainstream media here is running dead on. It’s news I’m rather pleased by.
YouTube - Rex Murphy on Climategate
Climategate: CBC on the greatest scientific scandal of our times | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Ahso!;1269845 wrote: I'll try again!
Why are you so obsessed with this, TB?
I guess I'm just happy to see the Global Warming Science shown to be as hollow as many of already knew that it was.
And I'm also always happy when I see real crooks get their asses handed to them.
Why are you so obsessed with this, TB?
I guess I'm just happy to see the Global Warming Science shown to be as hollow as many of already knew that it was.
And I'm also always happy when I see real crooks get their asses handed to them.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over ‘Climategate’
Michael O’Brien
The Hill
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.
Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.
“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’ she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.
The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university’s Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit’s case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.
Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Michael O’Brien
The Hill
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.
Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.
“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’ she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.
The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university’s Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit’s case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.
Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climategate: Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann throws Phil Jones out of the sleigh as panic grows
Gerald Warner
London Telegraph
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
When a pending investigation provokes panic among suspected wrongdoers, the first thing to collapse is any sense of solidarity in their ranks. A week ago you could not have put a fag paper between Michael “Piltdown” Mann, of hockey stick notoriety, and Phil Jones, the then director of the Creative Research Unit at the “University” of East Anglia. In those confident days, the communal line was that some hackers had stolen university property, Plod would soon be on the case, so move on, please, nothing to see here.
What a difference a week makes. The news that Phil Jones has “stood aside” from the CRU while he is investigated, however sympathetically, has earned him leper status in AGW circles. The disgraced director has the smell of death about his career: the other goats in the herd sense that he is the one marked for sacrifice and are turning away, bleating, to distance themselves from the doomed scapegoat.
Mann, whose own token investigation by the authorities at Pennsylvania State University already looks like the biggest whitewash job in America since Tom Sawyer duped his friends into painting his fence, has clearly taken one look at the career prospects of Jones the Mail and decided “I’m outta here!”
Climategate: Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann throws Phil Jones out of the sleigh as panic grows – Telegraph Blogs
Gerald Warner
London Telegraph
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
When a pending investigation provokes panic among suspected wrongdoers, the first thing to collapse is any sense of solidarity in their ranks. A week ago you could not have put a fag paper between Michael “Piltdown” Mann, of hockey stick notoriety, and Phil Jones, the then director of the Creative Research Unit at the “University” of East Anglia. In those confident days, the communal line was that some hackers had stolen university property, Plod would soon be on the case, so move on, please, nothing to see here.
What a difference a week makes. The news that Phil Jones has “stood aside” from the CRU while he is investigated, however sympathetically, has earned him leper status in AGW circles. The disgraced director has the smell of death about his career: the other goats in the herd sense that he is the one marked for sacrifice and are turning away, bleating, to distance themselves from the doomed scapegoat.
Mann, whose own token investigation by the authorities at Pennsylvania State University already looks like the biggest whitewash job in America since Tom Sawyer duped his friends into painting his fence, has clearly taken one look at the career prospects of Jones the Mail and decided “I’m outta here!”
Climategate: Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann throws Phil Jones out of the sleigh as panic grows – Telegraph Blogs
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1269849 wrote: I guess I'm just happy to see the Global Warming Science shown to be as hollow as many of already knew that it was.
And I'm also always happy when I see real crooks get their asses handed to them.So it's an emotional high for you?
And I'm also always happy when I see real crooks get their asses handed to them.So it's an emotional high for you?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Gore’s mountain of misinformation
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
Holland’s Elsevier reports on new research that once more shows Al Gore faked his findings in An Inconvenient Truth:
Former American vice president and Nobel Prize winner Gore has for years used the melting snow on Africa’s highest mountain (5892 metres) for his climate propaganda. The snow cover is shrinking and that is caused by man and his greenhouse gases!
The Dutch scientist Jaap Sinninghe Damsté debunks this story of climate guru Gore in the leading periodical Nature.
A natural process of large climate shifts seems to be the true cause, says the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research on Thursday¦.
The researcher and European colleagues discovered that Kilimanjaro underwent successive periods of heavy monsoons and extreme dryness. Ice and snow retreat from the top in dry periods and return in the very wet ones¦.
Al Gore must find another symbol for his climate problem. Kilimanjaro does now have little snow on the peak, but that seems to be completely natural.
(My translation.)
Gore’s mountain of misinformation | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
Holland’s Elsevier reports on new research that once more shows Al Gore faked his findings in An Inconvenient Truth:
Former American vice president and Nobel Prize winner Gore has for years used the melting snow on Africa’s highest mountain (5892 metres) for his climate propaganda. The snow cover is shrinking and that is caused by man and his greenhouse gases!
The Dutch scientist Jaap Sinninghe Damsté debunks this story of climate guru Gore in the leading periodical Nature.
A natural process of large climate shifts seems to be the true cause, says the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research on Thursday¦.
The researcher and European colleagues discovered that Kilimanjaro underwent successive periods of heavy monsoons and extreme dryness. Ice and snow retreat from the top in dry periods and return in the very wet ones¦.
Al Gore must find another symbol for his climate problem. Kilimanjaro does now have little snow on the peak, but that seems to be completely natural.
(My translation.)
Gore’s mountain of misinformation | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Ahso!;1269852 wrote: So it's an emotional high for you?
Yes.
Yes.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
ClimateGate: So, where’s the “Oh, Snap!” email?
Watts Up With That?
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
One thing about “ClimateGate” nagging at the back of my mind is the absence of any discussion by ringleader Phil Jones (or others) of the remarkable, shocking discovery that Jones now claims he had that his precedessor destroyed the raw data in the 1980s.
That is the data that scientists have for years been seeking from Jones under the UK’s freedom of information law. Against numerous such requests he offered equally numerous excuses for refusing access culminating with the September 2009 claim – when it looked like he’d been cornered and had no excuses not to provide it to Prof. Ross McKitrick who met all of his long-stated qualifications – that in fact he’d lost it.
First, it does seem odd that Jones would so firmly and crisply articulate his many, very specific excuses for so many years about why he could not provide something that in fact they had, as he now tells it, lost. His refusals all clearly imply that a belief that he had it.
But where are the emails putting out the word, oh, snap, you guys aren’t gonna believe this?
Among all that has been revealed, there does not appear to be one. Let alone a chain discussing the importance of not at long last actually having the raw, how this loss might relate to the scores of emails they wrote about whether to release the data and how to avoid releasing the data and how they’d rather destroy it (I don’t know, “pretend to have lost it”) than give it to the folks who seem to be on to them.
This seems like a big email, and a chain of discussions that would pervade that which has been revealed. It doesn’t.
To the contrary, we have numerous emails from Jones explaining how turning over the raw data is one option, but he’d much rather destroy it than let the intrepid start pawing over it which could only lead, as he admits in one email, to figuring out what CRU et al did to said raw data in order to come up with their alarming claims.
So there is a reasonable conclusion, and it is not that the data was lost or destroyed twenty years ago.
But who knows, maybe Jones wrote James Hansen at NASA, or Gavin Schmidt – for so long a taxpayer-funded activist for Environmental Media Services’ RealClimate.blog and now implicated as a major player in these emails (Capo number 6 according to this analysis). Those should turn up when the courts help NASA figure out how to come into compliance with their legal obligations and provide me similar data and correspondence that they have been, similarly and by chance, refusing me for over two years.
Christopher C. Horner Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L. St, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC, 20036 +1.202.331.2260 (O)
Author of the newly released: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed Amazon.com: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (9781596985384): Christopher C. Horner: Books
Author of The New York Times Bestselling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) Amazon.com: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (9781596985018): Christopher C. Horner: Books
ClimateGate: So, where’s the “Oh, Snap!” email? Watts Up With That?
Watts Up With That?
Friday, Dec 4th, 2009
One thing about “ClimateGate” nagging at the back of my mind is the absence of any discussion by ringleader Phil Jones (or others) of the remarkable, shocking discovery that Jones now claims he had that his precedessor destroyed the raw data in the 1980s.
That is the data that scientists have for years been seeking from Jones under the UK’s freedom of information law. Against numerous such requests he offered equally numerous excuses for refusing access culminating with the September 2009 claim – when it looked like he’d been cornered and had no excuses not to provide it to Prof. Ross McKitrick who met all of his long-stated qualifications – that in fact he’d lost it.
First, it does seem odd that Jones would so firmly and crisply articulate his many, very specific excuses for so many years about why he could not provide something that in fact they had, as he now tells it, lost. His refusals all clearly imply that a belief that he had it.
But where are the emails putting out the word, oh, snap, you guys aren’t gonna believe this?
Among all that has been revealed, there does not appear to be one. Let alone a chain discussing the importance of not at long last actually having the raw, how this loss might relate to the scores of emails they wrote about whether to release the data and how to avoid releasing the data and how they’d rather destroy it (I don’t know, “pretend to have lost it”) than give it to the folks who seem to be on to them.
This seems like a big email, and a chain of discussions that would pervade that which has been revealed. It doesn’t.
To the contrary, we have numerous emails from Jones explaining how turning over the raw data is one option, but he’d much rather destroy it than let the intrepid start pawing over it which could only lead, as he admits in one email, to figuring out what CRU et al did to said raw data in order to come up with their alarming claims.
So there is a reasonable conclusion, and it is not that the data was lost or destroyed twenty years ago.
But who knows, maybe Jones wrote James Hansen at NASA, or Gavin Schmidt – for so long a taxpayer-funded activist for Environmental Media Services’ RealClimate.blog and now implicated as a major player in these emails (Capo number 6 according to this analysis). Those should turn up when the courts help NASA figure out how to come into compliance with their legal obligations and provide me similar data and correspondence that they have been, similarly and by chance, refusing me for over two years.
Christopher C. Horner Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L. St, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC, 20036 +1.202.331.2260 (O)
Author of the newly released: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed Amazon.com: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (9781596985384): Christopher C. Horner: Books
Author of The New York Times Bestselling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) Amazon.com: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (9781596985018): Christopher C. Horner: Books
ClimateGate: So, where’s the “Oh, Snap!” email? Watts Up With That?
Link removed by moderator