
No Deleterious Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - 31,000 Scientists sign Petition - gibsonf1
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
======
davidw
More information on this prestigious institute:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine)

Cave Junction is a _beautiful_ area, and I'd highly recommend a detour if you
get the chance (say, go down the coast route instead of taking I5 south), but
it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere:

[http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.166779,-123.646999&spn...](http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.166779,-123.646999&spn=0.1,0.1&t=p&q=42.166779,-123.646999)

that, combined with their "nuclear war survival guide" stuff, makes me think
"survivalists!".

I would vote "not hacker news".

~~~
sethg
The Wikipedia article links to an even more informative piece on SourceWatch:

[http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute...](http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition)

~~~
1gor
Here is how modern anti-science propaganda works. Just read edit history of
linked wiki page on SourceWatch.

Arthur B. Robinson, head of Oregon Institute is labeled there "an eccentric
scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures
on the fringe of accepted research".

One science historian, author of a well-researched and well-reviewed book on
Amazon, objects and tries to edit the entry: "he is a thoroughly reputable
scientist... he does not have a 'long history' of controversial
engagements...".

His words are erased by some Diane Farsetta, who sits on the board of
SourceWatch and writes for AlterNet. She has not written a book on the
subject. But she has time and she has an agenda.

So the entry is back to personal slander and innuendo. Enjoy the 'facts'.

~~~
davidw
Uh... everyone in this debate has an 'agenda', not least of whom, the
organization in question.

------
yummyfajitas
Hey guys, shut up. You aren't supposed to show all those graphs. Only the
hockey stick! The Scientific Consensus is settled. No questions, please.

More seriously, I'm not confident of everything they discuss here, and I think
they are cherrypicking.

Upvoted because some of it is useful, however. For instance, hurricane
number/intensity vs time (Katrina wasn't caused by global warming folks) and
computer model uncertainty (they are crap). It's well worth a skeptical read.

~~~
andreyf
_Katrina wasn't caused by global warming_

It's not a good idea to make statements like this. Weather systems are very
complex, and we don't know if Katrina was caused by global warming or not. We
just don't know what an increase in atmospheric CO2 will do - that's what's so
scary about it.

~~~
radu_floricica
Exactly _what_ is scary about not knowing? The post makes a point that no
matter what the mechanism is, none of the variables involved is out of the
"normal" range for the last 3000 years. Excuse me if I don't "act now!" about
every thing that looks normal but is unexplained.

~~~
andreyf
_Exactly _what_ is scary about not knowing?_

That if the ocean currents suddenly change, hundreds of millions of people
could die.

 _none of the variables involved is out of the "normal" range for the last
3000 years_

That's a lie. Probably justifiable by a really bad definition of "normal".
Would you say we are at a "normal" range of CO2, historically?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png>

------
tectonic
Did you seriously read the last paragraph?

"Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground
to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We
are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a
result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with
far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed."

This is industry propaganda. See:
[http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/rea...](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/realclimate_wiki/)
<http://fm4.orf.at/chris/215162/main>

------
josefresco
One of those 31,000 'scientists' is none other than climate researcher-turned-
Spice Girl Geri Halliwell or "Dr. Halliwell" as her friends call her.

~~~
1gor
No, you are lying.

Signers "H": <http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p342.htm>

There are 452 PhDs on that page alone. Each of them actually risks something
by signing the petition, so this is no joke.

~~~
josefresco
I have no doubt once Geri's name was found (and made public) they removed it
from the list as it was obviously fake or just plain wrong.

My point was mostly humor, but my underlying point was that there is simply no
verification as to the qualifications of any scientist, phd or spice girl on
this list.

~~~
1gor
_Ad hominem ad nauseam_...

The signatures are results of a nation-wide mail survey first undertaken in
1998. The respondents were selected based on their scientific credentials of
publicly accepted quality. All the signatures are done in writing and are
available for inspection on your request at the institute.

Since you've just attempted a mass character assassination, do you mind
sharing the results of your inquest into the validity of the
signatures/qualifications with us?

~~~
Retric
_argumentum ad verecundiam_

An appeal to authority or argument by authority also known as argument from
authority. If you say 50 or 5 billion scientists provide wieght to your
argument your already falling under a logical falicy. Responding with an _Ad
hominem ad nauseam_ seems reasonable when at least one person that made the
list had zero credibility.

PS: I see a lot of hand waving and use of vary specific data when more general
studies have been done but I don't see any real theory. What model are they
using to base their assumptions on and how well tested is it and or what
specific flaws have they uncovered in existing research or thery?

------
1gor
Wow, those scientists have balls to stand up against 'big warming' special
interests...

------
steveplace
Show those hippies who's boss!

I didn't read the entire article, but this seems to be a great example of how
you can take an assumption and manipulate data to fit that mold. Good example
here:
[http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/selective_data_and_...](http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/selective_data_and_global_warm.php)

Crichton has a book about how this happens all the time in environmental
science. If you haven't read State of Fear, I strongly suggest it.

I think that the data is a non-issue. This is a rare occurence when interests
are aligned from two sides of the spectrum. Reducing carbon emissions through
less consumption is no longer some flower-child's dream; it has to do with US
national security, global stability, and economic security. It may seem like
alliterative nonsense, but it's what I believe.

------
ComputerGuru
From M-W:

 _deleterious: harmful often in a subtle or unexpected way <deleterious
effects> <deleterious to health>_

Just in case I wasn't the only one ;-)

~~~
ericb
If deleterious means harmful in an _unexpected_ way, wouldn't it be
meaningless to sign a petition saying no _unexpected_ problems are _expected_.

------
rufo
Does it matter whether or not global warming is man-made?

In case anyone has forgotten, there are plenty of other benefits we get along
with the switch to cleaner sources of energy.

~~~
cstejerean
benefits that include rapidly rising food prices because of all the farming
resources being shifted towards producing biofuels.

~~~
pstuart
The current approach with biofuels is a debacle -- algae is clearly the way to
go. That said, biofuels are not the only thing that comprises "green energy".
Solar, wind, geothermal all have their place.

Let's also not forget increasing energy efficiency and otherwise reducing
waste that have direct economic benefits...

~~~
Prrometheus
>Let's also not forget increasing energy efficiency and otherwise reducing
waste that have direct economic benefits...

Then it should be profitable to do so without $billions of subsidies and
draconian regulations.

~~~
pstuart
Agreed. Those billion$ in subsidies going to coal, oil and nuclear don't make
for much of a level playing field, do they?

------
Prrometheus
>"A review of the research literature concerning the environmental
consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the
conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have
produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased
carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of
harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor
greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge."

I'm pretty sure this is non-controversial. Most of the dangers of Global
Warming are _predicted_ based on _computer models_ of the future. They are
not, strictly speaking, empirical.

------
patrickg-zill
It seems to me that someone expert in the fields of either a) probability or
b) statistics could rather easily review the current climate models and
determine whether they respectively cover a) enough possibilities or b)
determine a confidence factor for the collected data, in order to determine
how useful the current climate models are.

My understanding of current climate models is that they are not sophisticated
enough to model even the actions of the Gulf Stream in combination with what
is happening on land, much less handle the Pacific High and whatever goes on
in the Indian Ocean.

------
pierrefar
How did this pile of crap make it to the front page of HN?

To make it more hacker friendly, check out the Open Source Debunking of the
paper and petition from October 2007:
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-
institute-of-science-and-malarkey)

Now, that's real science: Peer reviewed, transparent, and, shockingly, based
on evidence interpreted by people who understand it.

