Kokoda
Posts: 137
Joined: 2/20/2001 From: Melbourne,Australia Status: offline
|
I tried to ignore this, but I couldn't. I understand that this is preaching to the converted, but if you are interested in the reliability of the information you should see... http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html There are claims of a vast support from scientists... "Headed by Arthur Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research, OISM describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." "In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. 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. 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 (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research." I find it incredible that anyone could read the history and qualifications of the authors and the status of the institute and then give this any credence (unless you believed it anyway, in which case - please have your debates elsewhere). In posting this I am NOT saying that the Greenhouse Effect is confirmed (although the skeptics are a fringe minority), nor that human actions are responsible. I would just like to see threads like this moved to the appropriate place.
_____________________________
CHRIS
|