The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
www.petitionproject.org
31,700... How about a link to where you got this amazing fact.?
I work in the science's, & honestly, I cannot believe I missed such an important document in all the hysteria that is going on. Do please post the link, so I can see which of my colleagues broke ranks with our all powerful masters. My god, they are going to be in such trouble when they get found out.
That's too funny noco - have you had a look to see what the OISM is and how it functions?The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
www.petitionproject.org
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."
The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on occasional projects...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...
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers. ...
...Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his 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, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer...
..."The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago....
Notwithstanding ... the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."
...Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data,"...
...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...
...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."...
Consider how just about everything depends on oil and that, regardless of how much actually exists, oil is a finite resource that will eventually run out (and in my opinion we'll see demand exceeding supply a lot sooner than most are expecting - within 3 years).Regardless of climate change, we are 'yeast people', and sooner or later the 'sugar' will run out. If significant climate change events happen when we are close to exhausting our sugar supply, the number of people who are caught out and starve to death will be far greater, it could potentially kill most people on the planet. If they happen afterwards they probably won't matter too much. If they happen before, well, it might be beneficial. Then again, it might just turn out that we don't get any significant impact from climate change at all.
Either way, we, the yeast people, are still going to run out of sugar. Enjoy it while we still have a bit left!
Sorry Wayne, but he cherry picks like anyone else.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp/
I am very familiar with his work, In fact I have followed his work for 20 years. I have been saddened to see some of the recent postings he has made. He is just as biased towards his work as the irrational alarmists are to theirs.
The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
www.petitionproject.org
It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...
"Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-in-climate-debt/story-e6frf7k6-1225801565274CENTRAL American nations will demand $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries for damages caused by global warming, the region's representatives say.
Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called "ecological debt" owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.
Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was "an estimate" of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.
Noco, who or what is 'anelegantchaos.org'? I had a look at your link and it appears to be just a post from a blogger.Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!
Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-
www.anelegantchaos.org
www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php
Further info on Andrew Bolts Courier Mail blog.
If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!!!!!!
“I’m constantly stunned. It’s as if we’re back into the trial of Galileo or something and they’re simply arguing somehow that the science is fiction and that they alone in their own prejudiced universe occupy fact.
“I mean, we are back almost in a medieval court.”
So in order to attack the climate sceptics in the Opposition, Kevin Rudd enlists the help of probably the most famous scientific sceptic in history, who was eventually shown to have been right all along
Thank you Wayne I had already read his responses...
...You on the other hand, have been putting forward his research as the defining truth on this subject. All the while by the sin of omission, rubbishing or ignoring a very large body of work. From other extremely well respected & admired people in the fields of oceanography, climatology & physics to name just a couple of the disciplines this work crosses over.
Julia, if you go to www.couriermail.com.au and link to Andrew Bolts blog:-Noco, who or what is 'anelegantchaos.org'? I had a look at your link and it appears to be just a post from a blogger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzWaveGuy View Post
It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...
"Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/a...atestissue.pdf
Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!
Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-
www.anelegantchaos.org
www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php
Further info on Andrew Bolts Courier Mail blog.
If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!
[/I]http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/MEPRG.pdf
The link above is an example of what I consider hard data & good research. I would welcome comment.
Dr. James J. McCarthy from Harvard. Who currently holds the chair of AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/
I would be thrilled if you all read some of his papers. It will definitely give you a broader understanding of the Earth's workings. You could also note their current stance & the wording they use to describe their position. We can all learn something from it.
Noco, I find it difficult to regard Andrew Bolt as in any way objective.Julia, if you go to www.couriermail.com.au and link to Andrew Bolts blog:-
"HOW TO SEARCH INSIDE THE WARMIST CONSPIRACY", THE SEARCH LINK WAS CREATED BY READER ANELGANTCHAOS.
A comment which could quite equally be directed toward yourself.I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?