"31,000 scientists just in the USA reject 'global warming' agenda"
What kind of consensus is that. I know lloyd would like people to think these 31,000 scientist are all crazy. We are not talking about 10 or 20 or 100 or 200 or 1,000 or 2,000, but 31,000 just in the USA.
More Bullshit from A Chronic Liar and Brain-Dead Robot
Originally Posted by john
Background on the president (Seitz) of the organization that is responsible for the petition cited above. He died in March of 2008. So much for prestigious credentials (unfortunately).
-Seitz was a professor of physics at Illinois from 1949-1968 where he did seminal work on the nature of unit cells in crystalline solids
-During much of this time (1962-1969) he was also president of the NAS
-Seitz ended his active research role in 1968 to take on an administrative job as president of Rockefeller university
-After retiring from academia altogether in 1979, he became a ‘permanent consultant’ for RJ Reynolds Tobacco
-In 1989, CEO of RJ Reynolds let Seitz go because “Dr Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice”
-Seitz has continued to work for the Marshall Institute and other such think tanks
-He is currently 96 years old
From Real Climate re "Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey".
A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a ‘new’ article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“.
The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.
Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, instead of tediously going through the whole thing ourselves, we are going to try something new – an open source debunking.
As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve set up a Wiki to provide a one stop shop for articles debunking some of the worst climate contrarian pseudo-science. So, we’ve therefore set up a page for the new OISM paper, and what we’d like to do here is to start collecting material on this paper.
So, in the comments, please catalog any:
links to articles dealing with debunkings of the previous incarnations of this paper
clear cherry-picking of data
interesting edits between versions
and we’ll collate all the pertinent stuff on the RC-Wiki page. To make things easier, please label all comments by the section or figure numbers.
Just to get you started, all versions of the paper make a mistake in the dating of Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea record by 50 years (Figure 2 in early versions, Figure 1 now) since they do not notice that the published dates are in ‘years BP’ (Before Present) which is conventionally dated from 1950, not 2000. And that’s even without getting into the question of why this is the only paleo-record they highlight, or on what logical basis they put the ‘2006′ value on.
In another example, the authors appear to think that human breathing out of CO2 is contributing to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Actually since that carbon comes directly and indirectly from recent plants taking it out of the air, our breathing is carbon neutral). Additionally, they take the ratio of temperature change to CO2 change in the ice core record and assume that is the climate sensitivity of climate to CO2 as opposed to the other way around.
There is much, much more. Have at it! (end)
For those who want REAL AND ACCURATE INFORMATION and not ideology go to