Global Warming Petition Project. Are 32000 signers really that many?

I know. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but it still amazes me that Global Warming Deniers actually still cite this petition as meaning anything. On earlier postings, i have revealed the many skeletons this petition has in its closet, from denial of the link between smoking and adverse health effects, to fake signatures. But this time, i would actually like to make another point.
One of the main arguments made by the people who cite this petition is that it proves that there is no scientific "consensus" on the Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now, we have to beg the question on what constitutes a consensus. Many deniers argue that a consensus means a unanimous opinion. However, after typing the word into Dictionary.com, i see no definition with any mention of the word unanimous. Although certain definitions indirectly could be analyzed in this fashion, it is only common sense that unanimous opinion in global communities is unrealistic, especially in the case of "scientists." One would find it impossible to find any subject in which EVERY scientist in the US or World agrees upon. So obviously it would be pointless to even have the concept of a "scientific consensus" if it were based on a unanimous decision. Now Websters dictionary has only one definition of consensus: "Agreement; accord; consent." Dictionary.com also uses the term "majority" and "general agreement." Therefore i think is it safe to say that a "scientific consensus" exists when the vast majority of scientists agree on an opinion.
(Dictionary.com (consensus))

Now, with that out of the way, let's answer the main question. Are 32000 signers really that many? First lets make a few assumptions in the favor of the petition:
1. That all signers have been verified and generally agree with the petition (remember michael moore and ginger spice were on this petition).
2. That the sources behind this petition were credible sources (so that we know the signers based their opinion on legitimate research).
3. That we cared at all what a Veterinarian or Computer Engineer thought about Climate Science

Now lets make some observations and comparisons. Remember, this petition has had over a decade to get all the Global Warming Denier signatures it can. So we will compare these numbers to the National Science Foundation's Table of Employed U.S. scientists and engineers, 1999 (No table has come out since 1999 so these numbers will be lower than normal):
NSF: 1999 Table of Employed Scientists and Engineers
NSF Employment Tables from 1999
1. According to the website, "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition." This includes anyone with at least a "Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields" (note: they consider a DVM an appropriate scientific field). According to the NSF, there were 10,981,600 employed scientists with at least a bachelors degree in 1999. So this means that this petition only makes up .3% of all US scientists (Bachelors Degree of higher) in the United States. So that looks like 99.7% of US "Bachelors level or higher" scientists have not signed this petition.

2. I will summarize the others:


Qualifications: Signers: Total in US: % signed: % not signed:

PhD 9,029 736,700 1.3% 98.7%

Enviornment
and 1,563 102,100 1.6% 98.4%
Atmosphere


(Also, just an interesting bit of information. There are 9833 signers that are in the Medical and General Engineering professions, completely unrelated fields to the subject of Global Warming. Thats 31% of all the signers, almost a third of the petition!)

Basically, the most favorable group we can give these guys is 1.6% of the Environment and Atmosphere scientific community, which is the most relevant anyway. However, i don't think that 1.6% of the scientists in this field over an 11 year span translates to much of an argument against a consensus. I can only hope someone makes a "Project Steve" for the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming as well.

Remember that these petitions and surveys only means so much. If taken too far, its easy to get caught up in a simple argument from authority. However, it is always good to note when such a majority of scientists support a particular theory. Due to the nature of the peer-review process, there is very little effort to reach a group opinion about any scientific theory. Therefore, to have such a strong agreement, let alone any agreement, within the scientific community as a whole, means quite a bit. Its just something to remember when some random scientist bypasses the peer review process to tell you something in opposition to a generally accepted theory. Remember that these people know you are probably not very well educated in the subject. Remember there is probably a reason they can't convince 98% of the most knowledgeable scientists in their field. This should give you good reason to be skeptical. If an idea is on an unending fringe, there is probably a good reason. Find someone else with his expertise. Remember there is a 98.4% chance that you will find someone who can point out why he is wrong.
Also, so far i have seen this petition mentioned by Senator James Inhoffe (R-OK) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). I am sure a lot more have cited this petition. I personally find it sad that Dr. Paul endorses a petition based on the writings of a scientist who was determined to deny the link between Smoking and Cancer.
I understand this is merely an ad-hominem but it is also an issue of credibility. It is not a reason to completely ignore what they say, but it is a reason to be EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for reference, here are some websites the deal with the Global Warming controversy. These sites frequently refer to peer-reviewed articles in non-biased journals.
America's Climate Choices (National Academy of Science)
Real Climate
Skeptical Science

All of these sites support Anthropogenic Global Warming. To date i have yet to find a good denier site that supports legitimate peer-reviewed articles. Many of these denier sites do claim to be supported by peer review. But in my experience, when verifying these articles, i find that either:
1. The article does not support the claim of the denier. The denier has instead decided to cherry pick pieces of data in support of his argument, in disagreement with the overall conclusion of the original peer-reviewed article. This begs the question why he cant seem to get HIS article published in a peer-reviewed journal.
2. The article is published in a journal that is not respected by the scientific mainstream. These journals are often politically biased do not appear in respected databases (ex: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, and Energy and Environment).
3. The article is not actually Peer-Reviewed.

Here are some links to these websites so you can see for yourself. I invite you to comment if you find exceptions to my generalizations. I do not want to be guilty of "Straw Man" logic. I just have yet to see exceptions. Research these articles well.
GlobalWarming.org (strangely this site seems to focus on celebrities instead of scientists)
Climate Audit (this site almost seems to imply scientific conspiracies, sound familiar? [antievolution])

These are some of the most popular sites for and against AGW. However, They are merely starting grounds.