Bcc: rusty
_________
Begin forwarded message:
From: rusty
Date: 14 December 2009 22:44:32 GMT
Subject: Re: re-4: global warming – science & sources
Richard,
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine describes itself as a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute’s laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson
you’ll notice they don’t mention climate science as an area of interest or expertise….
the study you cite was written by three men, none of whom are meteorologists or climatologists
they are
Noah E. Robinson – son of Arthur B. Robinson. Ph.D. in chemistry from California Institute of Technology. Works on the OISM’s Oregon Petition Project, and is listed as its “Professor of Chemistry”.
Zachary W. Robinson- son of Arthur B. Robinson. B.S. Chemistry, Oregon State University and Doctor of veterinary medicine, Iowa State University. Listed is OISM’s Professor of Veterinary Medicine.
Willie Soon — aka Dr. Willie Wei-Hock Soon, a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and, has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory.
i’d like to suggest you should share this info with your readers.
cheers
rusty
____
Hi Rusty,
Thanks for your message. Given their mission, ‘increasing quality of human life’, I can see why they focused on the agricultural benefits of Co2.
What I’ve been finding is that you don’t need to be a climatologist in order to understand what’s going on with climate. It does help to be a climatologist if you’re trying to obscure the data, because then people tend to believe you. Any scientist, particularly in chemistry or physics, is more than capable of evaluating the data. As to how they interpret it, and whether they are trying to mislead, that’s another matter.
So far, I’ve been finding that the IPCC seeks to mislead in a very systematic way, shifting goal posts each time they get proven wrong. We must keep in mind that if you’re a climatologist, in the current political climate of carbon-fear, you are putting your career’s neck in the guillotine if you come out against the IPCC. It’s not surprising other scientists are stepping in to fill the void.
Meanwhile, most of the anti-warming material I’ve been looking at seems to stand up to further scrutiny. This doesn’t mean we should take everything at face value, but it does mean we’ve got to stop dismissing sources without looking at what they have to say. And we need to have a healthy skepticism regarding what the IPCC tells us. They are very much a political institution, with a specific agenda, tied in in with financial players who are positioned to make trillions from cap-and-trade and the other ‘green measures’ on the drawing board.
cheers,
rkm
___________________________
subscribe mailto:
websites:
archives:
