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

[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.

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?

See, Gary, that is what science courses are for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, do you know who Dr. Art Robinson is? Or more specifically, are you now also disputing the Theory of Evolution? I seriously think you've gone mad.

As for the OISM...from Wikipedia

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501©(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]

You're MAD I tell you....MAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Instit...ce_and_Medicine

Edited May 19, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[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.

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?

See, Gary, that is what science courses are for.

Also what abstracts are for as I recall.

[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.

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?

No, it was a petition of 30,000 scientists that reject the theory of GW. The study is separate.

[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.

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?

The paper is a review of some of the literature out there challenging some of the data that is available. The problem with review papers is that they are often cherry-picked points of data to suit the authors' point of view. It is nothing new in scientific writing.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, do you know who Dr. Art Robinson is? Or more specifically, are you now also disputing the Theory of Evolution? I seriously think you've gone mad.

As for the OISM...from Wikipedia

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501©(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]

You're MAD I tell you....MAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Instit...ce_and_Medicine

If I remember my chem... I think Kamen developed the C-14 radiocarbon dating method. I do not ever discredit the size of any scientific institute...

[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.

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?

The paper is a review of some of the literature out there challenging some of the data that is available. The problem with review papers is that they are often cherry-picked points of data to suit the authors' point of view. It is nothing new in scientific writing.

And exactly the same argument I have been offering for the people that agree with with man mad GW. It seems you only discount cherry picking when it disagrees with your bias.

[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.

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?

See, Gary, that is what science courses are for.

Also what abstracts are for as I recall.

Also figure captions... then you can refer to the appropriate text in the article when necessary. Nevertheless, one can train in quick reading of scientific papers, almost as fast as looking at review papers. Its being able to critically look at them that takes some time to train.

But lets see the actual data, not the cherry-picked data. Notice how I avoid calling them liars!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, do you know who Dr. Art Robinson is? Or more specifically, are you now also disputing the Theory of Evolution? I seriously think you've gone mad.

As for the OISM...from Wikipedia

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501©(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]

You're MAD I tell you....MAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Instit...ce_and_Medicine

If I remember my chem... I think Kamen developed the C-14 radiocarbon dating method. I do not ever discredit the size of any scientific institute...

Understandable, however...the institutes studies...biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging, not climate.

Gary is tried and true - hellbent on convincing himself or trying to prove to himself that he couldn't possibly be wrong. I say let him wallow in his self denial. It's comical. He'll probably be an old man before he finally realizes how wrong he was about Global Warming.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

keep um coming Gary, you come up with some hilarious stuff

[HAL 9000 96]

And exactly the same argument I have been offering for the people that agree with with man mad GW. It seems you only discount cherry picking when it disagrees with your bias.

Unfortunately, all you usually present is op eds and reports of reports of reports. Not exactly a series of studies founded in hypothesis-driven research. As I have continually tried getting you to understand.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

There is no proof! Hence the argument. While the rest of the world is drilling,exploring for oil we stand here arguing about the fcukin enviroment All the while biotchin about the price and whos fault it is. So ridiculous. Last I checked an ice cube melts in the sun.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, do you know who Dr. Art Robinson is? Or more specifically, are you now also disputing the Theory of Evolution? I seriously think you've gone mad.

As for the OISM...from Wikipedia

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501©(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]

You're MAD I tell you....MAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Instit...ce_and_Medicine

If I remember my chem... I think Kamen developed the C-14 radiocarbon dating method. I do not ever discredit the size of any scientific institute...

Understandable, however...the institutes studies...biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging, not climate.

Gary is tried and true - hellbent on convincing himself or trying to prove to himself that he couldn't possibly be wrong. I say let him wallow in his self denial. It's comical. He'll probably be an old man before he finally realizes how wrong he was about Global Warming.

As if you have any clue either. You seem just as convinced that GW is real. Oh, and this guy is a real scientists BTW. You take Mav's opinions on this subject even though he isn't a climate scientists. He puts himself out there as an expert on anything with the "scientist" tag on it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, do you know who Dr. Art Robinson is? Or more specifically, are you now also disputing the Theory of Evolution? I seriously think you've gone mad.

As for the OISM...from Wikipedia

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501©(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]

You're MAD I tell you....MAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Instit...ce_and_Medicine

If I remember my chem... I think Kamen developed the C-14 radiocarbon dating method. I do not ever discredit the size of any scientific institute...

Understandable, however...the institutes studies...biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging, not climate.

Gary is tried and true - hellbent on convincing himself or trying to prove to himself that he couldn't possibly be wrong. I say let him wallow in his self denial. It's comical. He'll probably be an old man before he finally realizes how wrong he was about Global Warming.

Yes, I see. I don't study climate either... I just choose to examine actual data, not others' opinions. Discipline-specific lingo aside, most data can be explained and understood as long as one realizes that scientific findings are obtained within controlled experiments and open-ended observations that are statistically relevant and methodologically delineated.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, do you know who Dr. Art Robinson is? Or more specifically, are you now also disputing the Theory of Evolution? I seriously think you've gone mad.

As for the OISM...from Wikipedia

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501©(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]

You're MAD I tell you....MAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Instit...ce_and_Medicine

If I remember my chem... I think Kamen developed the C-14 radiocarbon dating method. I do not ever discredit the size of any scientific institute...

Understandable, however...the institutes studies...biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging, not climate.

Gary is tried and true - hellbent on convincing himself or trying to prove to himself that he couldn't possibly be wrong. I say let him wallow in his self denial. It's comical. He'll probably be an old man before he finally realizes how wrong he was about Global Warming.

As if you have any clue either. You seem just as convinced that GW is real. Oh, and this guy is a real scientists BTW. You take Mav's opinions on this subject even though he isn't a climate scientists. He puts himself out there as an expert on anything with the "scientist" tag on it.

Like I stated- I look at actual evidence. You otoh...