Posted on 12/20/2006 7:46:46 PM PST by ancient_geezer
I didn't ping ancient_geezer on this reply. We're at loggerheads often enough, and I've expressed my opinion of any citation of the OISM petition several times to him in the past. It bothers me (but also amuses me) that an article attacking critics of global warming disinformation cites perhaps the most egregious and questionable example of such disinformation as a reason not to make reasonable attempts to quell such disinformation!
Irony2.
BTW, even though sometimes I've gotten peevish (and beyond) with ancient_geezer, I respect his extensive knowledge of the issue and his normal civility in discussions.
Well, Politburo members Snowe and Rockefeller sure seem to be making veiled threats in that direction. Gore has declared the argument closed to further debate. Sounds like State sanctioned scientific Lysenkoism to me.
OK, virtual Lysenkoism. The real Lysenko had people killed for disagreeing with them.
Snowe and Rockefeller haven't called for that yet, though it makes me a little nervous that they would threaten to use their subsidy power to direct the discussion.
Gore has the bully bearing. He might take the throne if offered.
We're six years into a moderatimg trend and the band plays louder, do you think a decade will make a real difference?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752268/posts
Have any legitimate sceptics condemned or defended the Oregon Petition? It looks like fraud to me.
Again, I do agree with those that object to Snowe and Rockefeller threatening ExxonMobil. You?
You do know that this has been denied repeatedly by the signers that the petition circulator was somehow speaking for all of them.
What this lengthy and very dated press release says is that the authors consider themselves to be infallible and their list of "consensus" non-climatologically trained "experts" have purer motives than the "deniers."
I challenge you to show me where the facts as they were presented in 1998 have stayed the same since then and also to show me how many times the protocols have been adjusted against how many times the greater number of the skeptics have changed their caution that we shouldn't leap before we look, and I mean look really hard.
You have admitted more than once that there is no easy solution given even the least of the dire scenarios being created and yet you still won't allow that perhaps we should agree to quit calling names and do some serious thinking about what it is we can afford to do.
Half the loudest voices give the impression that they would be happy if half the population of the planet suddenly disappeared tomorrow to reduce the load and yet they still go about screaming that the more reticent among us should act now before some innocent people are forced to move a few feet in the next century.
There is no need to panic and no good can come from it.
I thought we weren't going to make this personal; what exactly are your credentials as a meteorologist, climatologist, etc.?
Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it with probability 1.0.
LOL, you surely say that with tongue in cheek.
If not, I would certainly direct your attention to the multitude of studies of the outputs of GCMs currently in use and how much they disagree one to the others and disgree with actual the actual climate record regionally as well as globally.
In fact there is very little confirmation of the global warming models in use as "data" source for the global climate mantra.
For given input the outputs of the GCMs vary widely with the same inputs both regionally and in global aggregate measures.
Here's the way I see this coming down and it is too close to the way the so called ozone depletion debate turned out to be comfortable.
First, the media picks up on the notion that there might be some truth to the notion and then they publish every scrap of "evidence" to show that this may be indeed so.
Next, the skeptics begin to pay attention and do some research on what is known so far and make tentative statements that it may be a bit early to make drastic changes just because a few unsupported studies seem to coincide but they jump on the bandwagon of government funding for a definite analysis using the scientific method.
Then, a raft of of newly ordained "scientists" jump onto this bandwagon with brand-new, very loud drums and lead the parade.
Suddenly, the government funding kicks in and soon results are flowing like wine from a new press and we are awash in the intoxicating revelation that we may never need to be sober again if we just let the smarter scientists tend the bar.
Now, fully intoxicated with our new-found destructive power we are made to sober up just enough to regret having got drunk in the first place, so, like all good reformists, we set out to prohibit everyone from drinking the wine because, among many other things, it may be poisoned.
But, as it turns out, it wasn't the wine of knowledge but the wine of persuasion, our old friend, who takes from us our common sense and leaves us confused so that in our now un-inebriated state we will believe the guy who poisoned us in the first place.
Had we simply remained sober all along we could have sipped as we supped rather than falling into a stupor.
The wine is flowing again and this time the presses are running overtime and the poison is stronger.
"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,"
Have you seen this allegation, ancient geezer?
I've seen the allegations as cogitator has posted it or something similar before.
The reality, as far as those participitating by actually signing the petitions has not stand up to the allegation from what I have been able to determine.
It looks like most felt they were signing a petition with which they agreed with in substance judging from the statements of the sourcewatch posting:
"Notwithstanding this rebuke, 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."
Any allegation or question that might have to do with supposed sponsorship apparently had little to do with the bulk of participation in the petition, especially with NAS disclaiming any connection prior to the majority of folks apparently signing on after the NAS disclaimers, or in spite of such disclaimers as the case may be.
Course there is the possibiltiy that NAS expressly disclaiming any connections with the petition might have encourged some level of the participation and thereby affected the results somewhat ;O)
Introductory Letter: http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm
Petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
Bookmark for later. Thanks for posting.
Just to narrow this down, do you reject that the authors of the "Oregon Petition" attempted to pull a fast one by enclosing what looked like a peer reviewed NAS article? Again, from Sourcewatch:
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.
Do you have a link to a rebuttal from OISM?
Any allegation or question that might have to do with supposed sponsorship apparently had little to do with the bulk of participation in the petition, especially with NAS disclaiming any connection prior to the majority of folks apparently signing on after the NAS disclaimers, or in spite of such disclaimers as the case may be.
A valid point, if the signers had heard of the NAS disclaimer. Perhaps they didn't. Do you know of a discussion of this point?
Thanks. Disregard prior post - I should have refreshed the thread.
I read the links in your #74, but they don't address the controversy. So I again refer you to my #76.
Thanks.
Just to narrow this down, do you reject that the authors of the "Oregon Petition" attempted to pull a fast one by enclosing what looked like a peer reviewed NAS article?
I've seen no evidence of such myself, just alot allegations not really supported by looking at the material published. see #74.
The material there speaks speaks for itself. and does not appear to have been changed in any material way since its inception.
About the only thing changed on that site over the years are a few comments about hoaxed signers added under the Signers of Petition Explaination page and added names of signers as far as I can determine from my own files and from such confirmation as is available from the wayback webarchive entries for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.