I think you're being terribly naive about the politics of funding and grants in general within the modern scientific community. Sadly science isn't a bastion of altruistic purity but instead a community of individuals with the same failings as the rest of the world, ego, greed, insecurity, fear, desire for acceptance, jealousy and so on. Unfortunately though it's the best we've got for now, but make sure to recognize its shortcomings.
Global warming, right... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mattb
- Start date
- Status
oyam, I'm confused. What's your position?
I disagree. I think he's giving it an even plane; you're using it as a double standard. The scientific community is much more transparent than political one, or any of the anti-global warming proponents I've seen. The methods, numbers, models, etc. are there for anyone to test. The strongest leveling factor science has is that it never claims to be infallible.
How's this for funny timing? Just saw this on the news.
This is a petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which appears, on the surface, to be a legitimate group. They're listing that the petition has been signed by over 31,000 scientists including over 9000 with doctorates, which is right about triple the number that signed onto the UN climate change claims.
The data presented here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm seems to refute a lot of what's being claimed. I'm skimming through looking at the sources right now. It claims to be peer reviewed, but as I said I just found it so I can't vouch for it quite yet.
Here's the petition that was signed,
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
This is a petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which appears, on the surface, to be a legitimate group. They're listing that the petition has been signed by over 31,000 scientists including over 9000 with doctorates, which is right about triple the number that signed onto the UN climate change claims.
The data presented here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm seems to refute a lot of what's being claimed. I'm skimming through looking at the sources right now. It claims to be peer reviewed, but as I said I just found it so I can't vouch for it quite yet.
Here's the petition that was signed,
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
what news was it on? I've read stuff from them and found it to be pretty sketchy.
I've also seen their petition. it is utter tripe. here it is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
edit: link to actual pdf of petition:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Petition.pdf
"Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project."
petitions are horrible, and that goes for both sides.
I've also seen their petition. it is utter tripe. here it is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
edit: link to actual pdf of petition:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Petition.pdf
"Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project."
petitions are horrible, and that goes for both sides.
Last edited:
I haven't got time to research every facet of the institution, but if someone else wants to, let me know what you come up with other than this:
The OISM website says it has "six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." The only paid staff person, however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute on a regular basis. "They come up on occasion to do some work with us," Robinson told an interviewer in 1998.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
The OISM website says it has "six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." The only paid staff person, however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute on a regular basis. "They come up on occasion to do some work with us," Robinson told an interviewer in 1998.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Looks like it's the same place. I don't really like where they submitted for peer review but unless the data presented is faked it's very troublesome for global warming claims, I'm ignoring any opinions provided and just looking at the data they've presented.
Robinson is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory."
I think this guy is a crackpot. Even Issac Newton went nuts at the end of his life.
Here's an article he recently wrote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Robinson/art3.htm
"-- falsely claiming that DDT is dangerous to the environment --"
etc.
I think this guy is a crackpot. Even Issac Newton went nuts at the end of his life.
Here's an article he recently wrote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Robinson/art3.htm
"-- falsely claiming that DDT is dangerous to the environment --"
etc.
I wonder if the data is valid though, he may appear to be a little marginal after a little closer inspection but I wonder about the raw data that's provided in the document, ignoring the opinions tagging along with it.
To keep from inflating my post count I'll just add this bit as an edit.
I just read through that article he wrote about DDT and I have to tell you he's actually pretty much right on about it. He didn't seem like a crackpot there in the least, maybe he was suffering from trying to hype things a bit like the other side tends to do but overall he's right. A global ban on DDT was horrendously stupid. Limiting its use to brief periods and regions of mosquito born illness outbreaks was the way it should have been handled as the real problem with DDT was continual use since it doesn't break down for extreme periods of time, meaning it would otherwise accumulate in the environment and lead to eventual resistance as well as some side effects in other animals if concentrations rise too high.
The anti Darwin petition, on the other hand, sounds a bit hokey. I've done a bit of reading about the Discovery Institute in the past and the game they've played over the years trying to get it into the schools is pretty lame.
On the size and apparent lack of massive funding, well that's kind of a consequence of not accepting funding from sources that may have an agenda to push. It actually kind of legitimizes their claim that they aren't propped up by the energy companies etc. On the other hand if they had a massive office space in some class A building in downtown NYC I would want to know where all the money comes from to pay for it. As far as I can tell they don't seem to claim to fund their own research but are just collecting existing data from other sources.
To keep from inflating my post count I'll just add this bit as an edit.
I just read through that article he wrote about DDT and I have to tell you he's actually pretty much right on about it. He didn't seem like a crackpot there in the least, maybe he was suffering from trying to hype things a bit like the other side tends to do but overall he's right. A global ban on DDT was horrendously stupid. Limiting its use to brief periods and regions of mosquito born illness outbreaks was the way it should have been handled as the real problem with DDT was continual use since it doesn't break down for extreme periods of time, meaning it would otherwise accumulate in the environment and lead to eventual resistance as well as some side effects in other animals if concentrations rise too high.
The anti Darwin petition, on the other hand, sounds a bit hokey. I've done a bit of reading about the Discovery Institute in the past and the game they've played over the years trying to get it into the schools is pretty lame.
On the size and apparent lack of massive funding, well that's kind of a consequence of not accepting funding from sources that may have an agenda to push. It actually kind of legitimizes their claim that they aren't propped up by the energy companies etc. On the other hand if they had a massive office space in some class A building in downtown NYC I would want to know where all the money comes from to pay for it. As far as I can tell they don't seem to claim to fund their own research but are just collecting existing data from other sources.
Last edited:
it's hard not to dismiss someone who seems so blatantly unscrupulous, but I'll check out the data. I have no idea what the current protocols are for collection of this data(that's what the peer review is for), but I'll read it for obvious discrepancies. In any case, I would bet it would be nearly impossible to compile it in any timely manner when working essentially solo.
the general theme of his paper is a statement about politics. He speaks in vague words, like that the records were "short" before he wrote his paper, but he fails to provide quantification thereof.
his sources look sound at a glance, but I haven't the time to search through 70 some citations and their articles. He's experienced, but I still think he's a crackpot.
"As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. "
He seems to be implying that CO2 is directly related these things, which is a bit of a stretch. I've read reports that refute his claims that higher CO2 levels will substantially be offset by uptake in plants.
also:
Fresh water is also believed to be in short supply. With plentiful inexpensive energy, sea water desalination can provide essentially unlimited supplies of fresh water.
He seems to be claiming throughout that increased CO2 will be beneficial for a slew of reasons. The scope his paper is attempting to achieve is beyond that any reasonable paper would claim. He is claiming certainty on a very large range of ideas that are only marginally supported. When you look for a solid paper, you want to find one that limits its scope at least somewhat. I don't see that in his paper.
If you could find a peer review done by an actual climatologist, I imagine the holes would widen.
Also, some of the links in his citations are dead. This may not be his fault, but it shows that his "institution" is not well maintained.
his sources look sound at a glance, but I haven't the time to search through 70 some citations and their articles. He's experienced, but I still think he's a crackpot.
"As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. "
He seems to be implying that CO2 is directly related these things, which is a bit of a stretch. I've read reports that refute his claims that higher CO2 levels will substantially be offset by uptake in plants.
also:
Fresh water is also believed to be in short supply. With plentiful inexpensive energy, sea water desalination can provide essentially unlimited supplies of fresh water.
He seems to be claiming throughout that increased CO2 will be beneficial for a slew of reasons. The scope his paper is attempting to achieve is beyond that any reasonable paper would claim. He is claiming certainty on a very large range of ideas that are only marginally supported. When you look for a solid paper, you want to find one that limits its scope at least somewhat. I don't see that in his paper.
If you could find a peer review done by an actual climatologist, I imagine the holes would widen.
Also, some of the links in his citations are dead. This may not be his fault, but it shows that his "institution" is not well maintained.
here's a very solid critique of the arguments against global warming, including those by Arthur Robinson.
http://conflictrecovery.org/bin/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf
http://conflictrecovery.org/bin/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf
even more...
In early 1998, a senior scientist at The Woods Hole Research Center received a letter sent by an organization identified only as GWPP. Enclosed were several documents: a short note signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences; a photocopied article that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 4, 1997 entitled "Science has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth;" a scientific paper entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide;" and a petition to be signed and returned. The note, which was conspicuously lacking any sort of header or organizational letterhead, urged the reader to sign the enclosed petition and proclaimed that: "Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." The petition went on to state:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December of 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."
The "scientific" paper looks like any other reprint from a scientific journal. However, what the authors fail to mention is that this article was neither peer-reviewed nor previously published in any shape or form. To anyone not intimately familiar with scientific papers, this article would probably help to perpetuate the myth that there is still uncertainty about the warming of the earth. This paper, was in part, produced by employees of the George C. Marshall Institute. This organization, founded in 1980 to issue reports promoting President Reagan's "star wars" defense program, conducts no original research. Most recently, it has focused on issuing reports dismissing climate change
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm
In early 1998, a senior scientist at The Woods Hole Research Center received a letter sent by an organization identified only as GWPP. Enclosed were several documents: a short note signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences; a photocopied article that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 4, 1997 entitled "Science has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth;" a scientific paper entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide;" and a petition to be signed and returned. The note, which was conspicuously lacking any sort of header or organizational letterhead, urged the reader to sign the enclosed petition and proclaimed that: "Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." The petition went on to state:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December of 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."
The "scientific" paper looks like any other reprint from a scientific journal. However, what the authors fail to mention is that this article was neither peer-reviewed nor previously published in any shape or form. To anyone not intimately familiar with scientific papers, this article would probably help to perpetuate the myth that there is still uncertainty about the warming of the earth. This paper, was in part, produced by employees of the George C. Marshall Institute. This organization, founded in 1980 to issue reports promoting President Reagan's "star wars" defense program, conducts no original research. Most recently, it has focused on issuing reports dismissing climate change
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm
I wish they'd increase the funding for SDI based research. The amount of core scientific discovery that comes out of projects like it is amazing, it's funding they'd never get otherwise.
Back on topic, I wonder if there is anyway to establish vegetation levels throughout the globe in the distant past to correspond to CO2 levels. I'd be really interested to see if there is any correlation. I suppose you could check plant growth rates and reproduction in isolated controlled lab conditions, hrmm that has to have been done already. Anyone know results? Does increased atmospheric CO2 increase plant growth locally? Time to search.
Back on topic, I wonder if there is anyway to establish vegetation levels throughout the globe in the distant past to correspond to CO2 levels. I'd be really interested to see if there is any correlation. I suppose you could check plant growth rates and reproduction in isolated controlled lab conditions, hrmm that has to have been done already. Anyone know results? Does increased atmospheric CO2 increase plant growth locally? Time to search.
it does increase, but not to the levels purported by Arthur. People do it in greenhouses all the time. Or FW planted tanks, for that matter.
Those studies are all out there. Shouldn't take you too long to find 'um.
The data I was able to find just now suggests plant growth rate increases of near 40% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. This was from a number of different sources with pretty similar figures. Some plants though did not appear to recieve the same benefit but most did. I suppose it makes basic sense since it is a rate limiting reactant for photosynthesis as well as the primary structural component of the entire plant.
I'm surprised it wouldn't act as a feedback mechanism like enzymatic inhibition, the more CO2, the faster the plants grow and strip CO2 out of the atmosphere, which slows growth and allows CO2 to build up again ad infinitum. Who claims that this wouldn't happen and why?
I'm surprised it wouldn't act as a feedback mechanism like enzymatic inhibition, the more CO2, the faster the plants grow and strip CO2 out of the atmosphere, which slows growth and allows CO2 to build up again ad infinitum. Who claims that this wouldn't happen and why?
links?
Research published by three scientists at Southwestern University in Texas suggests that the price of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is sharply falling nutritional value in staple crops upon which 40 per cent of the world's population relies for its dietary protein.
Daniel Taub, Brian Miller and Holly Allen analysed more than 220 experiments in which plants were exposed to levels of carbon dioxide that ranged from the present ambient level to about double the existing level. They discovered that as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up, the protein in wheat, barley, rice, potatoes and soy beans diminishes, in some cases quite sharply.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d06935f3-c41d-4ff0-8f3a-c287a8db5367
I haven't searched for the original studies yet, but I'll keep it goin'. Suffice it to say there is no magic bullet. Pretty much ANYTHING we can think of off the top of our heads has been throughly looked into.
Research published by three scientists at Southwestern University in Texas suggests that the price of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is sharply falling nutritional value in staple crops upon which 40 per cent of the world's population relies for its dietary protein.
Daniel Taub, Brian Miller and Holly Allen analysed more than 220 experiments in which plants were exposed to levels of carbon dioxide that ranged from the present ambient level to about double the existing level. They discovered that as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up, the protein in wheat, barley, rice, potatoes and soy beans diminishes, in some cases quite sharply.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d06935f3-c41d-4ff0-8f3a-c287a8db5367
I haven't searched for the original studies yet, but I'll keep it goin'. Suffice it to say there is no magic bullet. Pretty much ANYTHING we can think of off the top of our heads has been throughly looked into.
Last edited:
OP
OP
This is the line of thinking that Boomer responded on one of these threads on RC. pH drops, alkalinity increases causing calcification to increase... What would be further interesting is to see how phyto population would increase (are the c limited).... On planet earth, they stated that 70% of the O2 on earth is due to them... Or maybe that was Cyanobacteria.
- Status