This is really pathetic. Some of you may remember a petition some years back from the Oregon Institute of Science and medicine. It was known as the "Oregon Petition," and famous for having approximately 17,800 signatures giving their "expert" support against the Kyoto Protocol. Scrutiny of that document revealed duplicate entries, and rather humorous entries like Geri Halliwell ( A spice Girl) and Perry Mason (TV lawyer.)
Well, now they are up to their old tricks again. They have mass-mailed out a package including an article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a highly dubious Journal which in the past has accepted papers arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS, that abortions lead to breast cancer, and that Medicare is unconstitutional. After reading the article, they ask you to sign the new petition.
A perusal of the article Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by Robinson, Robinson and Soon (basically a revamped version of the 1999 version) reveals the obvious errors. They go on at arms length how anthropogenic emissions have zero ( and the many incarnations of the concept that is nothing) effect on climate, but later on they admit that the tiny amount of CO2 output is dramatically changing the biosphere.
Perhaps what I find most hilarious, is the uneven nature that denialists will argue from. Discussing the IPCC and the consensus that exists in the climate studies community, they will tell you that science is not accomplished through consensus, that consensus is meaningless and that the climate community was proclaiming an imminent ice age (in actuality it was very few people saying this). Then, in other instances, we have this bull crap.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/20831/0086
Well, now they are up to their old tricks again. They have mass-mailed out a package including an article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a highly dubious Journal which in the past has accepted papers arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS, that abortions lead to breast cancer, and that Medicare is unconstitutional. After reading the article, they ask you to sign the new petition.
A perusal of the article Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by Robinson, Robinson and Soon (basically a revamped version of the 1999 version) reveals the obvious errors. They go on at arms length how anthropogenic emissions have zero ( and the many incarnations of the concept that is nothing) effect on climate, but later on they admit that the tiny amount of CO2 output is dramatically changing the biosphere.
Perhaps what I find most hilarious, is the uneven nature that denialists will argue from. Discussing the IPCC and the consensus that exists in the climate studies community, they will tell you that science is not accomplished through consensus, that consensus is meaningless and that the climate community was proclaiming an imminent ice age (in actuality it was very few people saying this). Then, in other instances, we have this bull crap.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/20831/0086
Last edited: