Interesting page as a follow-up to an old topic:
Here's the main page to the "anti-global-warming" petition drive, which contains the following:
"
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
And, here's the link to the pages with the (thousands, I think){Edit - 17,000+, it says} of signatures of PhD's, etc. who have signed on:
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm
I only put this here because someone asked why "all" scientists seem to buy into global warming. Don't know much at all about the people on the petition, except I do recognize quite a few U of M people on the MN portion.
Threaded Mode