<div>Roget et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for the info on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition, etc. on climate change.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some information on who they really are, a small connected group who have a slant on this issue that is rather transparent, and how they published this "scientific" paper, is at the URL immediately below. Down lower, there are links to extensive discussions debunking the claims of the OISM on climate change, and a link to discussion of the retraction of a paper authored by Willie Soon, one of the authors of the OISM paper, resulting in the resignation of research editors:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine</a></div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>Quote from the sourcewatch URL above:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in <i><a class="new" title="Climate Research" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Research&action=edit">Climate Research</a></i>, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists <a title="Sallie L. Baliunas" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_L._Baliunas">Sallie L. Baliunas</a> and <a title="Willie Soon" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon">Willie Soon</a>. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with <a title="Frederick Seitz" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz">Frederick Seitz</a> at the <a title="George C. Marshall Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute">George C. Marshall Institute</a>, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including <a title="Scaife Foundations" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scaife_Foundations">Scaife</a> and <a title="Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation">Bradley</a>, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's <a title="Strategic Defense Initiative" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Strategic_Defense_Initiative">Strategic Defense Initiative</a>--the "Star Wars" weapons program.</div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>Consider promotion of creationism and criticisms of evolution as a scientific theory, and petition signers to this approach. Maybe evolution is a false theory. But among professional biologists who are the most qualified to address this issue, there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of evolution of life over billion of years. There is also a current consensus among professional climate scientists that human CO2 emissions are altering the Earth's climate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Petition to doubt evolution:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/petition.html">http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/petition.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Info on the "science" behind the OISM climate change paper:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM">http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>More detailed dissection of the OISM pseudo-science effort on climate change:</div>
<div><br><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=480">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=480</a></div>
<div><br><a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/before-there-was-e-there-was-jpands.html">http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/before-there-was-e-there-was-jpands.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the authors (Willie Soon) of the paper presented by OISM on climate change published a paper that led to its retraction and the resignation of research editors in the journal "Climate Research." In short, this journal was caught publishing junk science:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf">http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/22/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">lfalen</b> <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ted<br>See <a href="http://www.oism.org/project">www.oism.org/project</a>. 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying global warming probably is natural and probably not a crisis. This does not mean that we should not be concerned about the air pollution, oil and and the environment, only that we should address the problems honestly. Researched should be encouraged to improve air quality. We should drill everywhere the is a possibility of finding oil. At the same time we should encouraged the market to develop alternative energy sources. There are food shortages around the world and people are starving. Research should be done on more drought resistant plants and on desalinisation. Desalination is currently too expensive. Work needs to be done on reducing the cost.<br>
Roger<br>-----Original message-----<br>From: "Ted Moffett" <a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:52:24 -0700<br>To: vision2020 <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
Subject: [Vision2020] Al Sharpton & Pat Robertson Together AddressingClimate Change<br><br>> When I first read that Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson would appear together<br>> in commercials to advocate action on climate change, I said I would not<br>
> believe it till I saw it. I just saw it on FX channel, running during the<br>> film "One Hour Photo" with Robin Williams:<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmpsUMdTH8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmpsUMdTH8</a><br>
><br>> Let's see... If Nick Gier and Douglas Wilson appeared together in public to<br>> advocate action on climate change, would this be a comparable local event?<br>> But we know that Wilson, Courtney, et. al., appear to march in lock step<br>
> opposing the overwhelming scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate<br>> change is a serious problem. We read Courtney at right-mind discussing the<br>> "church of global warming," as though the evidence for the problem is not<br>
> based on valid science. This view requires a complex psychoanalytic<br>> deconstruction, given it originates from someone embedded in a<br>> fundamentalist religious perspective.<br>><br>> Hmmmm....a fertile theme for future Vision2020 posts...<br>
><br>> Ted Moffett<br>><br>><br></blockquote></div><br>