[ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
Jess L. Addis III
ajess at clemson.edu
Mon Oct 18 19:42:16 CDT 2010
I read the Americanthinker article.
So what do we learn from the American Thinker article. Thompson cites
peer-reviewed papers but his analysis consists of eyeballing graphs while
spurning the peer-reviewed data analysis. This approach leads to the
opposite conclusion of the papers' authors.
The American Thinker article does not disprove the enhanced greenhouse
effect. It does however provide further evidence for the Dunning-Kruger
effect. Look it up. Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level
of competence. This leads to the result that unskilled people rate
themselves higher than more competent people.
(Dunning-Kruger effect) Many with a cursory understanding who believe
they're discovered fundamental flaws in climate science that have somehow
been overlooked or ignored by climate scientists. Some take this a step
further and believe THEY ARE BEING DECEIVED. Sound familiar? Frauds?
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 11:07 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
That is misleading. It referes to blatant fraud by data manipulation. Read
here for a clear
explaination of what "hide the decline" really means:
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.
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:
More information about the RadSafe