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

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It just goes to show if you get fcuked with something long enough you start to like it no matter what.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It just goes to show if you get fcuked with something long enough you start to like it no matter what.

Reminds me of Albert Einstein and his rejection of the quantum theory.

Edited May 20, 2008 by consolemaster

[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.

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

Yes, I know. Your an expert on everything. You can skim a 6 page study and in minutes decide that it's wrong. Do you know how you sound?

[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.

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.

Dr. Robinson is a loony nut who happens to be a scientist...who happens to dispute the Theory of Evolution...because it conflicts with his fundamental religious views.

[GaryC 7]

Dr. Robinson is a loony nut who happens to be a scientist...who happens to dispute the Theory of Evolution...because it conflicts with his fundamental religious views.

Yes, don't you know that all fundies are loonie nuts and everything they say is BS.

[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...

Yes, I know. Your an expert on everything. You can skim a 6 page study and in minutes decide that it's wrong. Do you know how you sound?

Like I also stated, that's what science classes are for.

I don't know about everything... maybe just an expert at being able to tell the difference between a 6, or even a 12 page REVIEW versus an 8 page research paper. You, apparently, can't tell the difference.

[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.

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!

Well they'd only be lying if they thought that what they were saying is untrue.

That said I find it hard to believe that a rationally minded person could support something as obviously political as Intelligent Design theory.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Dr. Robinson is a loony nut who happens to be a scientist...who happens to dispute the Theory of Evolution...because it conflicts with his fundamental religious views.

Spoken by one, who can determine one I suppose you also have the ability to see one a mile away?

Edited May 20, 2008 by CarolsMarc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dr. Robinson is a loony nut who happens to be a scientist...who happens to dispute the Theory of Evolution...because it conflicts with his fundamental religious views.

Spoken by one, who can determine one

That's an ironic statement if ever I heard one.

[Niels Bohr 72]

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.

Dr. Robinson is a loony nut who happens to be a scientist...who happens to dispute the Theory of Evolution...because it conflicts with his fundamental religious views.

Robinson did study under Linus Pauling, a nobel laureate in chemistry.

I would still think Robinson is credible. I am not totally neglecting his information. However, it may somewhat interfere with my logic too.

[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!

Well they'd only be lying if they thought that what they were saying is untrue.

That said I find it hard to believe that a rationally minded person could support something as obviously political as Intelligent Design theory.

Yeah there's another misnomer in itself...

[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?

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!

Well they'd only be lying if they thought that what they were saying is untrue.

That said I find it hard to believe that a rationally minded person could support something as obviously political as Intelligent Design theory.

It isn't a political issue with them. For some (not me) it's a way of explaining certain missing elements of evolution. But anything that has a smacking of faith in God automaticly removes it from serious conversation. And it seems by Steven's comments anything they say is put in the "loonie" catagory.

[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.

Dr. Robinson is a loony nut who happens to be a scientist...who happens to dispute the Theory of Evolution...because it conflicts with his fundamental religious views.

Robinson did study under Linus Pauling, a nobel laureate in chemistry.

I would still think Robinson is credible. I am not totally neglecting his information. However, it may somewhat interfere with my logic too.

Yes... and he also had a falling out with Dr. Pauling after he decided to confuse scientific data with their own reviews.

[Marilyn. 340]

you know I don't know if I believe in Global warming or not but what we are spewing into the atmosphere has to have some effect...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Dr. Robinson is a loony nut who happens to be a scientist...who happens to dispute the Theory of Evolution...because it conflicts with his fundamental religious views.

Spoken by one, who can determine one

That's an ironic statement if ever I heard one.

No Irony, just facts! Son youve been collared and are being takin for a walk and you dont even know it! Now theres some irony.