The Conveyor Belt

I suggest you use google for a few minutes and research the underpinnings of your list. There are suggestions that some signatures may have been optained under misleading circumstances. In addition, some of the names may be suspect.From: Error 404 - Page Not Found | PR WatchThe institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . .It is easy to note, even in your list, that there are a number of MD's there. This seems an unlikely source for expertise on global warming.If you really want to defend this are you prepared to take each of the claims of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine and support them? I suspect that you have jumped on something without understanding what is behind it. If I am wrong you will be able to take the global warming issues one at a time and defend them.

Rei
This is an example of the serious problem the political processes have when dealing with developing areas in science. The current state of knowledge can not tie up all the loose ends yet.We have a general consensus among atmospheric researchers on global warming but we do NOT have unequivical proof. And the political decision makers want to be absolutely sure.This wouldn't be a problem if we had time to wait and see. Do we? In truth we don't KNOW yet.
What if we act on the advice of he experts and it turns out global warming isn't happening. Let's make a wild assed guess that we spend 50 trillion US$ over the next 25 years that we didn't have to spend. It would have some benefits in technology advances and energy saveings (perhaps). Let's be optimistic and suggest 10 trillion in returns. We just blew 40 trillions. Real money!What if we accept the idea that global warming isn't happening or that it is ok, in spite of the consensus among those best able to judge. Let's say we are wrong in this?What are the estimated range of costs here. They vary a lot! It is hard to pin down. At one end we loose some farmland in one place, a few south sea island nations and bangladesh disappear but maybe the costs are only say 10 trillion over the next 50 years. But at the other end ----- we loose Holland, Bangladesh, Florida, Manhatten island the middle of california, LA, half of Seattle, London, Denmark, all of the corn and wheat growing areas of the USA, a larege fraction of the worlds temperate rain forests, etc etc etc. What are the costs then? Lets try 5,000 trillion (dammed if I know).So what we face is an insurance cost of 40 trillion to cover a risk of between 10 trillion and 5,000 trillion. I'd sure want to narrow those numbers a bit.And if there are hints that if we start too late we won't be able to stop the warming then I might spend some of that insurance money before I know everything and stop if I turn up evidence that I am wrong.(btw - i don't think we know what the upper limit to the risks of ignoring global warming are)