[ RadSafe ] ...- CO2 of >500ppm healthy forthe planet

[Dukelow, James S Jr]

Rainer Facius and Howard Long wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de [mailto:Rainer.Facius at dlr.de] 
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:16 AM
To: hflong at pacbell.net; Dukelow, James S Jr;
Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] ...- CO2 of >500ppm healthy forthe planet

Howard:
 
Thank you for this pointer, but can you tell me how I could properly
refer to this Robinson et al.  1998 'paper', if wanted to use this
information/data?
 
Has it been published and where?
 
Best regards, Rainer

________________________________

Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von howard long
Gesendet: Fr 08.09.2006 07:07
An: Dukelow, James S Jr; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA); radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine - CO2 of >500ppm healthy
forthe planet



Global Warming dupes should review at www.oism.org/pproject why 17,000
of us petition against prosperity crippling CO2 suppression.
  
  Howard Long

    <snip>

=========================

Well, at least Dr. Long writes "17,000 or us" rather than the usual and
false description of the petition as being signed by 17,000 scientists.
I looked it over a few years ago and again this morning.  The petition
index lists only names, some of them followed by "Ph.D.", "MD", or
"DDS".  OISM does provide an index of the names, alphabetical by state,
so I was able to go through the Washington State signers of the petition
and recognize some of the names and some of the omissions.  To the best
of my knowledge, none of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's
three dozen or so climate scientists and none of the faculty and
researchers in the University of Washington's Atmospheric Sciences
Department are signers.  All of the local signers that I recognize are
nuclear engineers and health physicists, most of them grumpily
conservative.  One interesting signer is Lou Guzzo, the right-wing
journalist (with no scientific training) who co-wrote the strange little
books that Dixy Lee Ray (one of my heroes) wrote in her dotage.

The petition and the Robinson, Baliunas, Soon, and Robinson "paper" are
projects of the loonier, anti-scientific fringe of the right wing.  The
paper has an interesting history.  Frederick Seitz is not a climate
scientist, but is a prominent scientist, formerly President of the
National Academy of Sciences and at the time of the writing of the paper
the President of Rockefeller University.  He had the "paper" formatted
to look as if it were a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
paper and sent it to several thousand of his dearest friends under a
cover letter extolling the paper and soliciting their signature on the
OISM petition.  The OISM web site has an approximate version of that
cover letter and the current version of the "paper".  The draft paper
that Seitz sent around was ludicrously bad.   The current version
eliminates some of the sillier mistakes and cherry-picking of evidence
in the Seitz draft.  The President and Board of the NAS at the time
vigorously protested the deception implicit in the PNAS formatting of
the draft.  Even after revisions, the paper was never published in a
peer-reviewed journal, but rather in the British journal Energy &
Environment, which is edited by a sociologist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
(with no basic understanding of hard science) who had openly solicited
anti-global-warming papers for her journal. Sonja has also provided a
pseudo-peer-review haven for several other trash papers from the right
wing anti-global-warming-consensus project.

Interestingly, before Seitz signed on with the fossil fuel companies to
help with their disinformation campaign, he filled the same role for the
tobacco companies in their "tobacco science" campaign.

I am not sure when E&E published the Robinson et al. "paper", but you
can probably look at the journal's web site to find out. 

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.