[ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

That is misleading.  It referes to blatant fraud by data manipulation. Read here for a clear 
explaination of what "hide the decline" really means:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

This is the biggest scam of our lives, and it is propagated by "scientists".  If we ignore this, we 
enable it, so I think some debate is warranted in every scientific venue.

-Gary Isenhower


On 18 Oct 2010 at 10:35, Shukla, Shailendra wrote:

I do not know why global warming debate belongs in radsafe? 

"Hide the decline refers" to hiding the decline in reliability of tree
rings on temperature.

Anyway, I refer people seriously interested in this as well as other
global warming skeptics' arguments to visit the web-site:

www.skeptcalscience.com/arguement.php


Shailendra Shukla, Ph.D
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 10:22 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
mind?

Three words for you, Parthasarathy, "...hide the decline."

That should be enough to make anyone very sceptical, but it is just the
tip of the melting 
iceberg.  As far as your comments go, you have commited a sin, and a
pretty serious one 
too: the fallacy of appealing to authority.  

You don't need a climate scientist to evaluate charges of fraud.  Again:
the question is NOT 
how much or why temperatures are changing.  The question is did Mann et
al fake 
temperatures, suppress conflicting scholarship, and then destroy their
data when they could 
no longer hide what they were doing.  The evidence is widely available
and overwhelmingly 
damning.  

Not that it should matter, but the Royal Society has just been forced by
its membership to  
backtrack:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-iss
ues-new-climate-
change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html

Here's a snippet from the article:
    'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming
trend of
    the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.

    'In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments
should take "urgent 
    steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This
political activism 
    has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific
evidence and 
    ongoing climate debates.

    'If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position
all along, its 
    message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's
unilateral 
    climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world.'

Focus on the evidence of fraud, not on the evidence of warming.  If you
find the evidence of 
fraud compelling, as I do, then the inescapable corollary is that a hugh
load of BS is spewing 
from the involved universities, government agencies, and scientific
bodies.  Talk about an 
environmental problem!

-Gary Isenhower

On 17 Oct 2010 at 1:37, parthasarathy k s wrote:

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

Dear Dr Gary Isenhower,