Coerced petition-signatures - the true proof of scientific theories

The "scientific" consensus:

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fueling skepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

...


One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.

The science is settled. The consensus is clear. Skeptics are deniers.

Because there is no better way to judge scientific claims than coerced signatures of non-climate scientists on petitions. If you can pressure enough geologists, botanists and micro-biologists to sign, under implicit threat of future failed grant applications, then the science must be good...