« British Quislings Shoot the Messenger | Main | Vegetarians Take to the Streets for "Poop Chute" Protection »

As much as I despise the global warming hoax I have to take issue with featuring the OISM here as a creditable source. Only mention this because I love this site and frankly the OISM is just as dubious a "source" as the moonbats themselves

I agree with Air2air, anything outside of the state of Jefferson you should take with a bigger grain of salt than normal.

I ain't no scientist, but it has been unusally cold the last 45 days of Spring in Maryland. Only, God controls the weather; not AL Gore or any other fool who attests otherwise.

The Socialist Road for the Fellow Travelers takes many forms.
31,072 learned people stand up in the road and state clearly, "Stop this foolishness", and they are right.

As pointed out previously, scientific issues are settled by dispositive data, not by a show of hands, regardless of which way the votes go. So while I'm a global warming skeptic, as regular readers will appreciate, I don't really care how many people agree or disagree. We don't have the data to make a definitive determination, but until we do, I find the arguments on the "pro" side to be quantitatively implausible.

But I reseve the right to change my mind, if/when such data become available.

A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) recently received a package in the mail.

The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 "Oregon Petition".

The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary's out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.

Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, this nonsense is not worth your effort.

This is good news.

Now if only they'd rally against the Darwinism hoax.

Dear oh dear... whom to believe... I find it odd that Real Climate (please, do, click on the name...) chooses the phrase 'cherry-picked' statistics. viz:

http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/lunatics-at-realclimateorg-specifically-gavin-caught-lying/

... or simply google realclimate.org and see what you get in the way of hits. I mean, when half of the top ten hits are decidedly *negative* towards an organization ('specially on freakin' GOOGLE!), it makes one take advice from said organization with a VERY large grain of salt.

Anyway, the point is that these scientists (presumably, therefore, possessed of some tiny bit of education and a smidgin of common sense) most likely read the brief petition before they signed it. The source is immaterial; the substance is. When someone apparently associated with realclimate.org deliberately misses the point, that it's the petition, not the paper... it's the substance of the petition, not the source... it's fundamentally about whether or not the science has "been decided" or not... well, it makes me wonder when I hear that person use a phrase like "this nonsense is not worth your effort." It makes me wonder: are you a scientist, or a propagandist? And why the concern over a petition that was only sent to American scientists, when your spelling indicates that you not one?

Oh, and the exhortation wouldn't be to "not sign the Kyoto Protocol". The KP is an international treaty, not a research paper, and has already signed on behalf of the United States... by a State Department flunkie under the Clinton Administration. Clinton, wisely, didn't want his own name appearing on the document, and, wisely again, left it to sit on his desk for the remainder of his term in office. An exhortation might be made not to RATIFY the treaty, but it could only be made to US Senators, and would only make sense if the treaty actually made it to the Senate.

Google is Evil - and Al Gore meets with the founders and executives on a regular basis for the sharing of the cool-aide.....

Just drive through thier Mountain View HQ and take a view of the bumper stickers.....

Google is MoonBat Central.......

Google is also in bed with the commie chinks.

Oiao & Anti-PC....

My point exactly. If even the overtly-leftist Google can't hide or redirect the critics of so-called RealClimate.org, what does that say about them?

Now, in reference to concerns about OISM from others, I'm in no way saying that they're the best thing since sliced bread... but considering how simply-put the petition is (the text, both paragraphs of it, is here)...

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

...and that the signatories, scientists, are presumably educated, and wouldn't sign a two-paragraph petition without taking the 40 or so seconds it takes to read the damned thing...

...isn't it interesting that RealClimate attacks the messenger and not the message? Honestly, if a moonbat told me the sky was blue, I wouldn't dismiss him/her/heshe/it out of hand simply for being a moonbat. I might look out a window to check, in the inquisitive 'always questioning assumptions' spirit of true science, but I digress...

Isn't it also interesting that this petition has garnered something like 12 times as many signatories as the IPCC? Even with the full weight of the UN, Al Gore, and the Global Warming Industry (tm) behind it? Just food for thought.

OISM can be complete and total morons who never had a sane day.

They're still more credible than Algorian dipshit fools.

Just borrowed your comments hiram... hope you don't mind.

H.A.M.

Never a prob with you. Feel free :)

Here is a fun article on the global warming hoax.

http://penshorn.com/2008/05/11/attention-activists--please-do-not-use-the-term-global-warming.aspx