[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

Sun Apr 11 18:50:13 CDT 2010

Mr. Salsman,

Your quoting from Wikipedia does your stance on "global warming" a disservice.  Wikipedia is a self editing, on-line encyclopedia and cannot be counted on to always contain the exact truth on all matters.  Your insistence on so many scientific bodies and scientists proclaiming the so called truth of this Elite gendered cap & trade tax scam, should alert you to the fact that even if 5 million scientists proclaim this as a fact, operating from the original false premise that man's puny activities are heating up the earth, means that 5 million scientists are still wrong.

The sun and it's sunspot activity, has always been, and always will be, the driver of the climate throughout our solar system.  The less sunspots, the cooler, the more sunspots, the warmer.  Your embrace of the IPCC and their "hockey stick" graphs of "truth" only proves that you are in the hands of even bigger fools than yourself.  My dear sir, do you remember back in the 70's the screaming over global cooling and media driven fears of a new ice age?  Do you really believe that in less than 30 years Man can totally change the climate of an entire planet???   So saying, I shall finish sending you the final report on this by Prof. Robert Carter, my own article on the subject sent to you earlier, to wit:

KILL THE IPCC

By Robert Carter

I am standing on the helicopter deck of the famous science-drilling ship JOIDES Resolution, the snow-capped mountains of South Island, New Zealand, glistening gently along the far western horizon. It is a privilege and a pleasure to be here. The group of 50 scientists and technicians on board are drawn from the best in the world, and from the many country members of the International Drilling Program (IODP).

For a research proposal to be allocated a drilling leg on JR - which lasts 2 months and costs about US $15 million to conduct - the science involved has to survive the most rigorous international peer-review.The drilling leg in which I am participating has been fostered by a group of scientists who are vitally interested in the topic of ancient sea-level and climate changes. Faintly, for it is far away, I remember that these issues are supposed to be the focus of international discussions in Copenhagen this week.I grimace at the thought, because the study of climate change, under the aegis of "dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions," has long since been captured by the small group of well connected, well networked and well funded atmospheric scientists and computer modellers who advise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and whose nearly every utterance confirms their ignorance of the true course of climate history and change on our planet - a topic that is the domain of geologists, not meteorologists and computer jockeys. However, the stately progress that the IPCC was making towards achieving international action at the COP15 climate conference against carbon dioxide, an environmentally beneficial trace gas, has been shattered by the Climategate affair.

"Climategate" refers to the recent leaking of a copious file of emails, technical papers and computer codes from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which is the research group that provides the IPCC with its iconic global temperature curve since 1860.The Climategate files have demonstrated the scientific malfeasance of an influential and internationally well networked segment of the climate research community. A small group of scientists and computer modellers - with the aid of an enormous supporting cast of environmental activists and organisations, self-interested business groups, and crusading journalists - have managed to turn the global warming issue (which in 1990 was an entirely sensible matter to have raised) into the scientific scam of the century, if not the biggest ever. Since the original leak in mid-November, which was not covered by the mainstream press, Climategate has surpassed 30 million hits on a Google searchThe IPCC is the official UN body that has presided over this fiasco. It is an organisation that was specifically set up to provide advice to national governments (including Australia's) for their use in setting climate policy.

The IPCC's incompetence is manifest in its failure to detect the corrupt science that has for so long permeated the activities of the international jetsetters of the climate science power group. The organisation should be closed down (without tears), and the Copenhagen COP-15 meeting would be a good place to start this process happening.That the global warming scare should turn out to be precisely the scam that climate rationalists have been banging on about for years is shocking enough; many future PhD theses and books will undoubtedly be written about it.

Yet it is but the tip of the iceberg so far as the public prostitution of science is concerned. Climategate being currently in full swing, the obvious question is when (not if) the parallel Reefgate, Murraygate and Fishgate scandals will erupt in Australia?All Australians should contemplate deeply the questions that are raised by the global warming scandal, including the systemic corruption of science and the dereliction of duty by media news organisations that it reveals. Key questions include the following.Why has our formerly excellent national science agency, the CSIRO, been allowed to become a consultancy arm for the government?

Why, amongst other shameless activities, has CSIRO been allowed to go around selling region-customized reports that are implied to provide climate predictions, but which in fact contain projections that are statistically no better than flipping a coin? (CSIRO's back is protected, of course, by the doubtless expensive lawyers who have insisted that the following disclaimer be inserted in all such reports: "This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood.

Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report". Would you buy a used car from these people?). Why has the Australian Research Council been required to apply "national science priorities" as if any scientist, however distinguished, let alone a bureaucrat or politician, has the wisdom to discriminate between useful and "useless" research?

Behind the corrupted science of Climategate and the fall of the IPCC, then, lie two things. The first is the degradation, mainly by political interference, of research conditions and practices within modern government-funded research groups. The second is the power and financial clout of the modern, ecoevangelistic Green movement, egged on by crusading media reporters and editors. The world has probably never before seen a propaganda and political machine that is as well oiled, well funded and well organized as this modern army of apocalyptics and their media flag-wavers. But voters who respond to the siren song of the Greens imperil both our standard of living and, ironically, the state of our natural environment.

For every dollar that is spent on a false environmental issue such as dangerous human-caused global warming is a dollar that is not available to be spent on a real environmental or social problem. 

www.americansw.blogspot.com

www.jean-bush.blogspot.com

"Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking.  It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails."
I Corinthians 13:4-8 

 > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:07:49 -0700
> From: jsalsman at gmail.com
> To: StevenFrey at aol.com; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning
> 
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM, <StevenFrey at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Salsman ... [has an] implied belief in man-made global warning,
> > despite the credibility fiasco its own principal proponents have brought
> > upon themselves (University of East Anglia, IPCC, Penn State, etc.).
> 
> Implied? I've explicitly stated my belief in man-made global warming
> on multiple occasions, which -- according to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change --
> is shared by 32 national science academies and at least 41 other
> scientific societies, with none others -- zero! -- dissenting since
> the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current
> position in 2007. The literature reviews consistently report a
> consensus on anthropogenic climate change. This is a lot less
> controversial than uranium chemical carcinogenicity, and I'm proud
> that I'm on the correct side of that issue.
> 
> And I'm proud that I'm on the same side of the uranium carcinogenicity
> issue as secondary peer reviewed medical literature, and still waiting
> for anyone who bases their opposition on the discredited Health
> Physics Society party line that nephrotoxicity is the greatest danger
> of uranium exposure to provide any peer reviewed empirical studies or
> literature reviews in support of their position -- I've looked, and
> there are none.
> 
> > We need not accept the presence of anyone who delusionally strives for
> > self-aggrandizement and ideological glory to the detriment of others, let
> > alone tries to get any of us fired.
> 
> Again, I've never asked for anyone to be fired or reprimanded, just
> that they retract their statements. On three occasions, when they
> have refused after several requests and a lengthy discussion, I've
> contacted their management to ask again. Who wouldn't do the same
> thing if someone was promoting a toxic snake oil medicine? If there
> was someone from a large or apparently respectable organization
> purporting to be an expert on a vaccine mailing list urging people to
> refrain from having their children vaccinated, and they wouldn't agree
> to retract such a statement, who wouldn't inform their management of
> the statements being made in their company's name? Isn't there an
> ethical obligation involved here?
> 
> Are people so ashamed of their opinions on uranium carcinogenicity
> that they are afraid that someone might tell their boss what they have
> been saying about it? If you believe something is true, and it's in
> your area of expertise, shouldn't you be proud of it enough that the
> idea of your management learning that you say it doesn't cause you to
> demand censorship?
> 
> What we have here are a bunch of nuclear power and uranium mining
> proponents who are rightly upset that they've been mislead, don't want
> to admit it because of the magnitude of their emotional investment in
> the issue, and want to take it out on anyone who is willing to stand
> up and call them on it. Future historians are unlikely to be
> astonished at the extent that the nuclear power industry's attempt at
> self-preservation through inaccurate propaganda led to a systemic and
> widespread lack of trust in the proponents of nuclear power.
> 
> That's a shame, because the nuclear power boondoggle causes valuable
> research reactors to suffer:
> http://depletedcranium.com/the-critical-shortage-of-non-power-reactors/
> 
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1