Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

[GaryC 7]

Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

May 15, 2008 12:39 PM EDT

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM

What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"

When: 10 AM, Monday May 19

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Release...is/3654512.html

The petition:

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

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.

For a list of names of more than 30,000 scientists that signed the petition go here:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Gary it wont matter! The ball is already rolling. The only thing that will stop this ####### about global warming is more ppl starving due to high energy costs.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmm...Interesting

I bet there will be 300 million people petitioning that there is global warming. But, they are not scientists. ROFL. In the case of majority over the minority, the majority wins.

[Nagishkaw 510]

:dance:

[GaryC 7]

A little something for our resident "expert" to look over.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

A little something for our resident "expert" to look over.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Gee Gary, that study looks like it cost me a fortune. Whats really ironic is all these studies are government funded.

[HAL 9000 96]

A little something for our resident "expert" to look over.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Given your adamant posts, I think you could probably read that document on your own.

Nevertheless, I commend you for finally adding the point of view of another scientist group- notwithstanding that after looking at the "evidence" they use, they base one set of conclusions against potential models of future atmospheric fluctuations instead of actually basing their conclusions on actual data- and the linear regression plots they use include "many"graphical points but the linear behavior look like these "many" points, if anything, are intentionally left out.

Then again, that is not actual data but a review article. Hence, it is cherry-picked. Nice try, though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder what Robinson's basis was for writing the substance of the article - From this brief bio it seems that his expertise is in biology and public health.

He was also involved with another petition disavowing evolution in favor of Intelligent Design.

That's quite a range of interests.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

A little something for our resident "expert" to look over.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Given your adamant posts, I think you could probably read that document on your own.

Nevertheless, I commend you for finally adding the point of view of another scientist group- notwithstanding that after looking at the "evidence" they use, they base one set of conclusions against potential models of future atmospheric fluctuations instead of actually basing their conclusions on actual data- and the linear regression plots they use include "many"graphical points but the linear behavior look like these "many" points, if anything, are intentionally left out.

Then again, that is not actual data but a review article. Hence, it is cherry-picked. Nice try, though.

As expected. Rejection out of hand. Nice objectivity. But I guess you know better than 30,000 other scientists.

[HAL 9000 96]

Actually, 6, this guy is what I would consider to be a legit scientist. As in my case, its the scientific principle of investigation that earns him points. What our friends here still can't get is that opinionated reviewers are more than entitled to cherry pick their own data to review.

Furthermore there is the entire issue with getting at least these 31K scientists to peer-review that review paper...

A little something for our resident "expert" to look over.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Given your adamant posts, I think you could probably read that document on your own.

Nevertheless, I commend you for finally adding the point of view of another scientist group- notwithstanding that after looking at the "evidence" they use, they base one set of conclusions against potential models of future atmospheric fluctuations instead of actually basing their conclusions on actual data- and the linear regression plots they use include "many"graphical points but the linear behavior look like these "many" points, if anything, are intentionally left out.

Then again, that is not actual data but a review article. Hence, it is cherry-picked. Nice try, though.

As expected. Rejection out of hand. Nice objectivity. But I guess you know better than 30,000 other scientists.

Well, I actually read the paper. Did you? And understand it? From my eye as someone that is capable of seeing cherry-picked data, it is visible. Otherwise the paper could have gotten published somewhere with a little more circulation than in the oism webserver.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Furthermore there is the entire issue with getting at least these 31K scientists to peer-review that review paper...

It will take a long time, I bet.

[HAL 9000 96]

Furthermore there is the entire issue with getting at least these 31K scientists to peer-review that review paper...

It will take a long time, I bet.

And one thing is challenging the science behind the theory and another thing is challenging the theory itself. I think there is the problem with mis-interpretations to once again, read (or think they're reading) what they want to see in the work.

[GaryC 7]

Actually, 6, this guy is what I would consider to be a legit scientist. As in my case, its the scientific principle of investigation that earns him points. What our friends here still can't get is that opinionated reviewers are more than entitled to cherry pick their own data to review.

Furthermore there is the entire issue with getting at least these 31K scientists to peer-review that review paper...

A little something for our resident "expert" to look over.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Given your adamant posts, I think you could probably read that document on your own.

Nevertheless, I commend you for finally adding the point of view of another scientist group- notwithstanding that after looking at the "evidence" they use, they base one set of conclusions against potential models of future atmospheric fluctuations instead of actually basing their conclusions on actual data- and the linear regression plots they use include "many"graphical points but the linear behavior look like these "many" points, if anything, are intentionally left out.

Then again, that is not actual data but a review article. Hence, it is cherry-picked. Nice try, though.

As expected. Rejection out of hand. Nice objectivity. But I guess you know better than 30,000 other scientists.

Well, I actually read the paper. Did you? And understand it? From my eye as someone that is capable of seeing cherry-picked data, it is visible. Otherwise the paper could have gotten published somewhere with a little more circulation than in the oism webserver.

My your fast. You read and understood the paper in less than 15 minutes. And your skills at shooting down others ideas are to be commended also. When is your nobel prize coming?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, 6, this guy is what I would consider to be a legit scientist. As in my case, its the scientific principle of investigation that earns him points. What our friends here still can't get is that opinionated reviewers are more than entitled to cherry pick their own data to review.

Furthermore there is the entire issue with getting at least these 31K scientists to peer-review that review paper...

A little something for our resident "expert" to look over.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Given your adamant posts, I think you could probably read that document on your own.

Nevertheless, I commend you for finally adding the point of view of another scientist group- notwithstanding that after looking at the "evidence" they use, they base one set of conclusions against potential models of future atmospheric fluctuations instead of actually basing their conclusions on actual data- and the linear regression plots they use include "many"graphical points but the linear behavior look like these "many" points, if anything, are intentionally left out.

Then again, that is not actual data but a review article. Hence, it is cherry-picked. Nice try, though.

As expected. Rejection out of hand. Nice objectivity. But I guess you know better than 30,000 other scientists.

Well, I actually read the paper. Did you? And understand it? From my eye as someone that is capable of seeing cherry-picked data, it is visible. Otherwise the paper could have gotten published somewhere with a little more circulation than in the oism webserver.

Do I have this right then? Robinson got 30,000 scientists to sign up a general petition regarding on their views on climate change - and based on that he wrote a paper about it based on already recorded? But a paper that the signatories to his petition haven't actually read?

Edited May 19, 2008 by Number 6

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Remember one thing "we are all smaller than a speck of dust in the scheme of things" from that perspective none of us knows shite!