Re: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!

["jjcohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

  John,

      If, in fact, the OISM used the technique as you describe, it should be

noted

  that this approach is not unprecedented in scientific circles. The ICRP,

has a

  long history of doing the same thing by considering only at those studies

that show

  harmful effects of radiation and ignoring those that indicate otherwise.

                      Jerry





  ----- Original Message -----

  From: John Fleck <jfleck@abqjournal.com>

  To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

  Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:38 AM

  Subject: Re: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!





  > I think one should be cautious before citing the OISM petition.

  >

  > It was based on what might charitably be called an act of academic

sleight

  > of hand: a "review paper" set in the typographic style of the PNAS in a

  > transparent attempt to led credibility to it, sent to an apparently

enormous

  > number of scientists - in all fields, not only climate - along with a

  > petition for them to sign. The "review paper" might best be described as

a

  > brief for the plaintiffs, not a genuine review of the evidence. How many

  > scientists was it sent to? That would seem a relevant fact that would

allow

  > one to better judge how many scientists declined to sign it. Alas,

Arthur

  > Robinson, its author, won't say. "We're not willing to have our

opponents

  > attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are

  > against us," he told a reporter for Nature in 1998.

  >

  > Tim Lambert recently wrote an excellent review of the situation[1]:

  >

  > "Unfortunately, the "research review" they were sent is not a research

  > review of global warming evidence, but just a review of the evidence

against

  > global warming..... As a researcher, when I see a "research review" I

expect

  > that it will cover all the relevant research. I can certainly understand

how

  > a scientist who was under the impression that it was a genuine review

might

  > be persuaded that there was no good evidence for global warming,

especially

  > because the vast majority of scientists who signed were not climate

  > scientists...."

  >

  > Cheers,

  > John

  >

  > [1]

  >

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/oregonpetition.html

  > see also http://www.johnquiggin.com/archives/000212.html

  >

  > ----- Original Message -----

  > From: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>

  > To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>; "Riely, Brian P."

  > <brian.riely@ngc.com>; <John_Sukosky@DOM.COM>;

<radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>

  > Cc: "Jane Orient" <jorient@MINDSPRING.COM>; <rcihak@verizon.net>;

  > <delmeyer@delmeyer.com>; <info@co2science.org>

  > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:23 AM

  > Subject: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!

  >

  >

  > > Data at www.oism.org/pp  and www.co2science.org lists a 17,000

scientist

  > > petition proclaiming the non-threat of global warming and the benefit

from

  > > MORE CO2.

  > >

  > >

  >

  > ************************************************************************

  > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

  > unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

  > text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

  > with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

  > http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/