I apologize for interjecting another AGW post here, but it fits with quack watch. There was yet another “list” of people who are great physicists, who are opposed to AGW…

I got the lists confused and I had to look at this new one. So as to set the record straight… And please note that this fits here, because again, the issue that links is letting politics hold sway over fact.

OK let’s look at some people from your list… First off out of 143 raging signatures, as opposed to the thousands, who actually work in the field, who say otherwise… Here are some that might be a bit questionable.

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs
ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)

Andrew Kaldor
Distinguished Scientific Advisor
Manager of Breakthrough Research
ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)

Timothy D. Calvin
President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired)
Fabricated rubber products for the DOD, shoe and automobile industries

Jerry M. Cuttler
President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc.
Engineering, consulting, and licensing services for the nuclear power industry

Rodger L. Gamblin
Managing Director
Corona Color, LLC

John M. Kennel
Autonetics Division,
Boeing North American (retired)

Michael D. Lubin
Colonel,
United States Air Force

Gordon C. Oehler
Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Working Group Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

Rusty S. Towell
Professor of Physics
Abilene Christian University

Now to continue, there are people on the list who sound quite credible - retired people who are not in the field, and who are not personally convinced of the evidence yet. OK so what? There are also the far right of the physics world here. What do you think older retired plasma guys from LANL work on? These are people who thought it was cool to build thermonukes. They are as hard right as they come. And yes, it does cause one to question their biases.

But without trying to completely shred everyone on the list, and without pointing to the tens of thousands of scientists who are actually involved in this and would say different…

Where is the hard evidence that these people might have to create a counter claim?

I search the names and I find no papers by them with any hard data… If they are going to make a scientific claim about this, such that it they are contradicting the massive evidence already established, where are their papers? It is a bold thing to dissagree with the established consensus without data of your own.

NOT a single one of them has a paper out there in a peer reviewed journal that contradicts the science on AGW.

So what we have here is not science.