[ RadSafe ] presentations on controversial public issues work better with social science

Karen Street Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jul 24 19:11:04 CDT 2012

Noah Robinson is not prominent enough to have his own entry in Wikipedia. He is associated with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which includes nuclear war survival skills, revolutionizing diagnostic medicine through the telecosm (no clue), nutrition and cancer, etc. So they have a variety of interests. Their section on climate change includes their petition project, with its letter from Frederick Seitz, now dead, written years after the tobacco industry fired him because his dementia was so bad. You don't have to be a PhD to sign this, nor does your PhD doesn't have to be in climatology.

Noah is son of Arthur Robinson, apparently attacking climate consensus is a family project. Arthur runs OISM. 

A 2007 article on their work is here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

This includes links to some interesting articles, eg, on Arthur and OISM. Apparently OISM provides home schooling for parents worried about socialism in the public schools. 

Needless to say, none of their work is peer reviewed. This does not sound like the kind of institution where anyone compulsively tries to prove biases to be wrong. 

Re the Petition Project, a friend and I randomly took 10 names from different pages to see who the signers were. She found a couple who were PhDs in other fields of science, but hadn't published anything for decades. One of mine listed his typing skills above environmental skills on his online resume.

OK, I'm taking some time off.

> I believe the 15 pages of data analyzed by Noah Robinson at www.petitionproject.org
> because I know that he compulsively tries to prove his bias wrong.
> Is that not the foundation of the null hypothesis?
> Howars
> howard.long at comcast.net
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Howard,
>> Thank you for reading my blog post.
>> US social scientists will often assume the US National Academy of Sciences reports (unless there is disagreement from the scientific community) articulate positions of scientific consensus. They then look at what motivates people to get their sources from elsewhere, and a different understanding. Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs. Motivated reasoning is the active method of using one's reasoning to get results you are motivated to get. It turns out that exploratory reasoning, using your reasoning abilities to explore what is, is not particularly common. Social scientists find that most people—especially those who talk or write about controversial social issues—are motivated to confirm gut reactions that often occur in < 1 second on issues for which the people have no or inadequate background. 
>> I have sent out another post asking exactly what it is you believe. I look forward to your answers.
>>> Indeed, Karen,
>>> "- consider which sources are trustworthy-"
>>> Edward Teller, who managed production of our nuclear deterent at Livermore (LLNL)
>>> signed at www.petitionproject.org the 15 pages of carefully critized data,
>>> (31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs)
>>> "There is no convincing scientific ecidence that human release of carbon sioxide
>>> - will cause catastrophic heating -"
>>> This Sat and Sun at Long Island Mariott, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness 
>>> will have 16 presentations, many on the climate "State of Fear" and others on radiatuion,
>>> like Jerry Cuttler's on the benefit of treatment with low dose radiation.
>>> See www.ddponline.org for details.
>>> Howard Long MD MPH
>>> howard.long at comcast.net
>>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> I did some presentations on climate change and nuclear power in June, now have blogged on it. Basically, if you include what social scientists say about the parallels among all who reject scientific consensus, the discussion becomes more understandable and safer; so does changing minds. Based on these two presentations anyway.
>>>> http://theenergycollective.com/karenstreet/96306/using-insights-social-science-presentations-climate-change

Best wishes, 
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php

More information about the RadSafe mailing list