Which would, of course, undermine the whole point of trying to get "a lot of names" and might expose the possibility that some (many? most? all?) of the signatures belong to people that have no background in the field.
I personally don't know if they even exist. I tried to Google a few, and the results came out pretty empty, most often with the Big Block of Text web site coming up as the #1 hit. But let's list the first few, shall we? No, wait, found someone who'd already done the research, and here you go:
A random sample (the first five names from the list alphabetically) would be Earl M. Aagaard, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron.
1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection toany scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery"). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).
5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
Compare these to the first five authors alpha listed for the IPCC AR4 WG1 The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change:
1. Krishna Achutarao. Research Scientist at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Relevant publications: plenty.
2. Robert Adler. NASA Senior Scientist in the Laboratory for Atmospheres and is also currently serving as Project Scientist for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Relevant publications: plenty.
3. Lisa Alexander. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Relevant publications: plenty.
4. Hans Alexandersson. Climatologist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Relevant publications: plenty.
5. Richard Allan. Atmospheric scientist, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading. Relevant publications: plenty.
Wow. A guy who admits to pulling scientific conclusions out of the holy book of his religion; a guy who either doesn't exist, or who has evolved an immunity to Google searches; a cancer specialist; a veterinarian specialising in large animals... and... wow, a dead ISP guy. One must wonder if he signed the petition before or after he died.
Everyone is welcome to do his own research, but the names I looked up were about as unimpressive as the ones listed above (in the first bath of names, of course, not the second
In the meantime, I'm going to disregard the list as Creationist/quack "let's throw this wall of paper at them and then use their inability to spend years debunking it as evidence!" tactic. Yes, I said years. If one google search takes five minutes and you have 30 000 names, you need to spend 30 000x5, or 150 000, minutes. That's 2500 hours. If you did nothing but trudge your way through the list for eight hours a day, taking no breaks or vacations and at no point slowing down, it'd take you 312 and a half day. For those of us who can't make this a fulltime job? 2 hours a day? You'd be finished in 1250 days, at which point nothing would stop the AGW deniers from simply gathering a new set of 30 000 signatures, or declare your research bunk.
It's pretty obvious that this thread is headed nowhere.