In my inbox the other day was an e-mail from someone who claimed that there was proof of a global warming hoax. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is now claiming that 31,072 American scientists say that there is no global warming or that even if there is, it is not caused by human events. My only response was to link that person with an older thread in AnswerPool, which gives a bit more information about those "scientists."
Here is, in past, what was said in 2007 on AnswerPool:
(JohnGalt) But there are 17,200+ scientists (That's seventeen thousand) (2/3rds with advanced degrees) who have publicly stated,
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
So I guess the 17,000+ scientists are also being conservative in their estimate that the sky is not falling? Why are the 17,000+ wrong, but the 3,800+ (who by their own admission don't even do relevant research or even monitoring(!) speak the gospel truth?
02-07-07, 04:11 PM babthrower The answer to that is really, really simple.
First, science is traditionally very slow to adopt a new paradigm.
-- The theory of plate tectonics took sixty years to be accepted.
-- That a virus, and not stress, causes duodenal and stomach ulcers was first observed in 1982. In 2005 the researchers won a Nobel. But in the interim, they were 'reviled and persecuted'.
-- It was known and tested by 1753 that oranges and lemons prevented scurvy; but it wasn't adopted as a remedy in the British Royal navy until 1795, in the U.S. Navy until 1812, and the British Merchant Marine until 1865.
Reminds me of the denial that lead as an additive in gasoline to prevent engine knock was causing health and environmental damage. (The evidence of the toxicity was published in the 1920's). But corporate America opposed control, which would harm mines in Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Montana, and refineries in Pittsburgh, Chicago and Buffalo, and harm auto manufacturing. So, many lies were told by government spokesmen, by industry 'scientists', and by editorials in the press. Lead wasn't banned in gasoline until the 1980's.
Second, denial and propaganda on the part of the very, very greedy:
Science may be slow to react to new information, and draw sensible inferences. But it is not stupid and pigheaded, falling for the propaganda of big business, as stated by General Bullmoose: Roll Eyes What's good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A.! Roll Eyes
02-07-07, 04:42 PM juanruiz
quote: Lead wasn't banned in gasoline until the 1980's.
A hollow action: lead was rendered unusable by the catalytic converter.
02-07-07, 06:21 PM newnickname
quote: But there are 17,200+ scientists (That's seventeen thousand) (2/3rds with advanced degrees)...
'In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The 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.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:
"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out...'Case Study: The Oregon Petition
02-07-07, 06:52 PM methos I'm reluctant to post because I imagine this will drag on and I'm not around as much as I used to be, but I couldn't let this go without comment:
"who by their own admission don't even do relevant research or even monitoring"
No, that's not what they say. I'm a member of the Society for Applied Spectroscopy. The SAS does no research in spectroscopy. I do research in spectroscopy...
Anyone see where I'm going with this?
The IPCC reports are written by scientists who do relevant research. Quite appropriately, when writing a report intended to reflect the global consensus, they do not limit themselves to their own work; they rely on the whole of the scientific literature (which, of course, includes their own work).
02-07-07, 07:26 PM babthrower Woohoo, good posts, NNN & Meth. 02-08-07, 01:06 AM newnickname
quote: ...but the 3,800+ (who by their own admission don't even do relevant research or even monitoring(!) speak the gospel truth?
The 3,800 may not have said that they did no relevant research, but Robinson, the petition guy, did: "Arthur Robinson, a physical chemist from Cave Junction, Ore., who circulated the petition by mail among scientists, said questionable names were added to the petition by pranksters...
And whoever said that any scientists 'speak the gospel truth'? That statement shows a lack of understanding of science. Or maybe it’s just that tiresome straw man fallacy again - putting ridiculous words in the mouth of whoever you're debating.
I notice that Robinson has removed the obviously silly names that were pointed out by others. Al Caruba (scientific credentials – pesticide dealer) is still there, though.
The list is still just a list of names - no institutions, or details on qualifications or research. The website says the list has been "independently verified" but by who, and how? Maybe Robinson’s brother-in-law, to check that it is in fact a list of bored and unemployed science graduates, or other assorted wing-nuts, who e-mailed their names in from their parents' basements?
There's little understanding of science on the site either. Science isn't done by petition. Robinson’s research itself doesn’t stand up –"[Robinson's] paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere. ... It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer."mediamatters.org
Now, who you gonna believe? That's not to say that the scientific consensus has got it right, of course. The climate is such a huge and complex system, there's bound to be a lot we don't yet know about what's going on. I'd tend to accept what a properly constituted, open and honest body of scientists came up with, though, over what various vested interests in the US, and the people who (for some reason) support them, say. ------------------------------------ Now for a little information on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (fancy-sounding name, isn't it?) from Wikipedia (Bold mine - DG) - The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located about seven miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. It describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."
OISM lists six "faculty members,"[1] but does not enroll students or teach courses.
The institute is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, who received the Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from the California Institute of Technogy. Robinson established OISM in 1980 after he fell out with his mentor Linus Pauling.[2] Other listed faculty are biochemist Martin D. Kamen (died in 2002), Nobel prize-winning chemist R. Bruce Merrifield (died in 2006), Salk Institute biochemist Fred Westall, electrical engineer Carl Boehme, and physician Jane Orient.[1]
The OISM is known mostly for the role it played in 1998 in circulating the Oregon Petition, a "scientists' petition" on global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
OISM markets a home-schooling kit for parents who are concerned about how "American schools have degraded severely."[3] Another OISM project is Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. The Institute publishes the book "Nuclear War Survival Skills," describing how to survive nuclear war.[4]
Six faculty members two of whom are dead. That's actually funny. But wait! There's more. Below are some selected quotes from a quick Google search for "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine."
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126).
The Home Page's current navigation bar lists 8 individuals under the "Faculty" heading. Two of those listed are deceased, and two are sons of OISM's head, Arthur B. Robinson. Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as "Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body.
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Insti...Science_and_Medicine
A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 "Oregon Petition".
The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary's out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed. - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/o...cience-and-malarkey/
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine held a press conference yesterday announcing that 31,000 scientists had signed a petition rejecting the notion of man-created global warming. The problem is, most of these people aren’t even scientists.
Envirowonk checked it out, and what they found is pretty hilarious:
So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 “experts” on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!
OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don’t specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something. Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let’s t * W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney. * Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled “Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials.” * Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year. ake a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected “climate experts.” - http://earthfirst.com/global-warming-deniers-pretend-to...anti-kyoto-petition/
Note: The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is in no way connected to either the Oregon Health and Science University or the Oregon Institute of Technology, both of which are real schools, with students and faculties who are experts in the field in which they teach.
I will link my friend to this thread. I really hope she reads this, and understand that anyone using the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is either lying or doesn't care much about finding out the truth of the matter. Checking out the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine took a couple of minutes. That's all it took to find out that it's claims about "scientists" is bogus.
(But you have to laugh at a Spice Girl as one of the "concerned scientists." Having Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H) is a hoot, too. But they forgot Col. Potter and Cpl/ Klinger!)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17279 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
"Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in."
Stephens went to University of Chicago and the London School of Economics. He is now a columnist. He has slightly more scientific credentials than Ginger Spice, but not as much as the dentist that signed the bogus claim by that 6 man Institute (4 alive, 2 dead). (I bet the Ponds Institute, from the commercials, has more actual scientists working on skin cream than that Oregon home schooling outfit.)
Posts: 17279 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
What I see DG is you like to slam the credentials of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and Bret Stephens. But that is not showing how they are wrong in their accessment of the Global Warming issue.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
No, I didn't tell you that they were wrong about global warming. Those facts speak for themselves, at least, to those that care about facts and overwhelming majority opinion. I was just pointing out that they presented false scientists as their authority. But that does not surprise me for an "institution" whose faculty consists of 4 living people and 2 dead guys, with 3 of the faculty being father and 2 sons. Maybe you think it is acceptable to fake credentials. Most people don't. Do you ever wonder why people fake credentials? Do you wonder why this group of mail-order home schooling supply providers fake the credentials of the signers of their petition? Most reasonable people can figure out why.
Posts: 17279 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
And I can see why you talk bad about them. Mainly because they research the facts on a position you disagree with. And yes the facts do speak for themselves. The fact that climate change is a natural event, not a product of man made activities.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
I LOVE dg's photograph. Since the facility is located 7 miles from a very small town, on a farm, it is obvious that the research building is a barn. First class all the way! 3 living faculty, no students, and a research building full of cow and horse manure. From what I have read, they have made good use out of whatever bull manure was left in the barn. You can really pick'em, LR. Alchemists from the Middle Ages had better equipment!
Posts: 17279 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
DG-I shall point out, I didn't just "pick 'em" as you put it. You brought attention to them when you posted this on the forum.
And though you like to make fun of them, saying they are located in a barn, that is irrelevant to the subject of their research.
My opinion. I admire small organizations like this who are willing to tackle controversial science projects. How many huge break throughs in science have been discovered by such small groups like this one. Probably more than we'll ever know.
Put down & make fun if you will, in the end they will be the ones smiling.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Mainly because they research the facts on a position you disagree with...
...I admire small organizations like this who are willing to tackle controversial science projects.
But, according to OISM's own website, they don't do any research on global warming, and the website doesn't contain any information on global warming - just links to other websites.
'...Current projects include work on the deamidation of peptides and proteins as it relates to fundamental biochemistry and to protein aggregation diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease; research on improved techniques for medical diagnosis; improvement in precollege education curricula, especially in the sciences; and improved civilian emergency preparedness.
Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds.'www.oism.org
It seems the only original 'work' they're doing on climate change is organising that silly petition.
NASA's corrected U.S. figures now show 1934 to be our warmest year, followed by 1998 (an El Nino year) and 1921. Half of the top ten are prior to World War II. Four are from the 1930s and three are from the last decade.
The 1960s and 1970s are notably cool.
Was there much fanfare in the media when the numbers were corrected?
And wouldn't it be amusing if all of the scientists with credentials rivaling those of the aforementioned Ginger Spice turned out to be right?
Posts: 7920 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
1934.....1.24............ / .42 1998.....1.24............ / .52 ---------- I don't see how a higher deviance from a 5 year mean takes second place to a lower deviance. I also don't see how this chart speaks to anything but the annual mean and the 5 year mean. A chart with actual temperatures would be more helpful in determining the truth.
"And wouldn't it be amusing if all of the scientists with credentials rivaling those of the aforementioned Ginger Spice turned out to be right?"
It would also be amusing if a chimpanzee sang an aria from Aida, but I'm not going to hold my breath until either happens.
Using a discredited letter to support any cause casts doubt on that cause, at least until a qualified source comes along. In the global warming "controversy", the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are in general agreement. Until I hear that operatic chimp, I'll stick with the most guys with the best credentials, and I doubt that they have ever been near that barn.
Posts: 17279 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I'll stick with the most guys with the best credentials,
And so will I.
Fuse-We certainly should be good stewards of our environment. But many confuse using our natural resources as not being good stewards. And I don't agree with that. Many also buy into this man-made climate change nonsense thinking the world is going to end real soon if we don't change our ways.
I think the environmentalists actually do more harm than good for the environment. Some examples.
(1) Back during the clean up for the Exxon Valdez, they were paying people to wash oil off of rocks. Later it had come out, the cleaner they were using was probably more harmful to the environment than had they left it alone. They had to leave due to winter. As it turned out mother nature completed the clean up process.
(2) Anybody here like the idea of wind farms for producing electricity...Yet there have been instances of wind farms been black-balled. And by who...environmentalists. Didn't want to spoil the view of the area.
(3) Cleaning our forests. How many millions of acres of forests do we see burn up every year??? I remember during President Bush's 1st term, he wanted to allow selective timber cutting in the National forests. The idea being to help clean out a lot of the brush that when dried up, was very vulnerable to lightning strikes & other conditions that might set off wild fires. The environmentalist threw a fit. They would rather see 10 million acres of trees burn, million$ of dollars of property destroyed, than to see 1000 acres of trees cut for lumber. And something else rarely mentioned. The smoke from these wild fires polluting the air.
Should corporations be responsible for footing the bill on clean up of environmental damage they cause??? Absolutely. Should we strive to maintain clean air & water. Of course.
My point is just because many don't believe in the Global Warming concept, does not mean we are not good stewards of the environment. That premise is totally false.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Regardless of who is "right" in the global warming debate, should our response be different as good stewards of our environment?
An excellent point.
One thing that strikes me about the "Drill here Drill now Pay Less/Let's do nothing about Global Warming that might make it difficult for me" crowd is their childish self-centredness. There was a 'golden generation' that sacrificed so much; I wonder if this will be seen as the 'me, me, me' generation - that wanted to be able to pollute as much as was necessary to maintain (or, in India and China's case, reach) a wasteful lifestyle, no matter what cost could be handed on to future generations.
I guess, before really responsible stewardship begins, we need to wait for the "greed is good" meme to die out.
Regardless of who is "right" in the global warming debate, should our response be different as good stewards of our environment?
An excellent point.
One thing that strikes me about the "Drill here Drill now Pay Less/Let's do nothing about Global Warming that might make it difficult for me" crowd is their childish self-centredness. There was a 'golden generation' that sacrificed so much; I wonder if this will be seen as the 'me, me, me' generation - that wanted to be able to pollute as much as was necessary to maintain (or, in India and China's case, reach) a wasteful lifestyle, no matter what cost could be handed on to future generations.
I guess, before really responsible stewardship begins, we need to wait for the "greed is good" meme to die out.
This thinking is not only wrong but totally out of touch with reality. I see nothing but absurd criticism yet absent of any alternative solutions. And who are these childish self-centered people you are referring to??? I figure it must be everybody. Because in one form or another, everyone uses some kind of product derived from petroleum.
The U.S. needs to quit pandering to the environmental movement and open up the areas banned for drilling. We need to feed more supply into the market. It certainly won't happen over-night. Oil & natural gas are subject to inflation like anything else. The problem is, it is not gradual but tendsto take wild swings. When the price hits the gas pump, everybody feels it.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Why? What gives this generation the right to use up the last of the oil (in ridiculous faux-military SUVs and the like, to boot)? Why should such a precious resource be sold as cheaply as possible right now? If the oil is necessary and valuable now, won't it be even more so a hundred years down the line?
In the 60's in British Columbia, they invested heavily in building hydro-power stations and we're still feeling the benefit. The Hoover Dam still functions. There are numerous other examples of generations investing in projects they would not see the full benefit of.
What will the "drill now, burn it all up now, keep it cheap" gasoline-heads of today leave to the future? Maybe not even an apology.
I shall point out not everyone drives SUV's & faux military vehicles. And we are far from running out of oil but until alternative fuel vehicles are better developed & perfected, we still need oil.
And what good is the oil doing just sitting there doing nothing??? Oh, I remember now. It will be at least seven years before it even hits the market place. I'm sure we will be needing oil in seven yesrs. And heaven forbid, should some event trigger a supply disruption, what good is the oil doing us underground...
As tight as the oil markets are, we need to be developing what we have and keep exploring for more unknown reserves.
Also we should be developing more nuclear energy power plants, coal technology. As for an energy shortage, we don't have one. But we certainly need to develop and harness what we have.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
AnswerPool.com 
