Comments on: “‘Denialism’ has no place in scientific debate,” my letter in Nature Medicine http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/06/11/%e2%80%9c%e2%80%98denialism%e2%80%99-has-no-place-in-scientific-debate%e2%80%9d-my-letter-in-nature-medicine/ Climate Change News & Analysis Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:41:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: The Daily Bayonet « Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 1st 2010http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/06/11/%e2%80%9c%e2%80%98denialism%e2%80%99-has-no-place-in-scientific-debate%e2%80%9d-my-letter-in-nature-medicine/comment-page-1/#comment-35503 The Daily Bayonet « Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 1st 2010 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:13:58 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=29294#comment-35503 [...] Exposing the methodology of those that want to undermine skeptics by calling them denialists and linking them with crazies. [...] [...] Exposing the methodology of those that want to undermine skeptics by calling them denialists and linking them with crazies. [...]

]]> By: John A. Jaureguihttp://www.globalwarming.org/2010/06/11/%e2%80%9c%e2%80%98denialism%e2%80%99-has-no-place-in-scientific-debate%e2%80%9d-my-letter-in-nature-medicine/comment-page-1/#comment-35379 John A. Jauregui Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:37:59 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=29294#comment-35379 Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming? Answer: Infinitesimal The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It's no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann's Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why? Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?

Answer: Infinitesimal

The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It's no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann's Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?

]]> By: complaints and consuhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2010/06/11/%e2%80%9c%e2%80%98denialism%e2%80%99-has-no-place-in-scientific-debate%e2%80%9d-my-letter-in-nature-medicine/comment-page-1/#comment-35081 complaints and consu Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:40:24 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=29294#comment-35081 he Service is provided to individuals only and for personal use only. You agree to use the Service only to post (send) and view (receive) personal messages. Any unauthorized commercial use of the Service, or the resale of its services, is expressly prohibited. You agree to abide by all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations and are solely responsible for all acts or omissions that occur under your name or email, including the content of your transmissions through the Service. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to: he Service is provided to individuals only and for

personal use only. You agree to use the Service only to post

(send) and view (receive) personal messages.

Any unauthorized commercial use of the Service,

or the resale of its services, is expressly prohibited.

You agree to abide by all applicable local,

state, national and international laws and

regulations and are solely responsible for

all acts or omissions that occur under your

name or email, including the content of your

transmissions through the Service. By way of

example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to:

]]> By: Charles Bartonhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2010/06/11/%e2%80%9c%e2%80%98denialism%e2%80%99-has-no-place-in-scientific-debate%e2%80%9d-my-letter-in-nature-medicine/comment-page-1/#comment-34922 Charles Barton Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:11:00 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=29294#comment-34922 Consider the problem of Lysenkoism. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was the ideological boss of Soviet Genetics research in Stalinist Russia. Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was imposed on Soviet researchers, despite quiet objections. Given Lysenko's denial of the mainstream 20th century genetics theories, and the lack of scientific evidence supporting Lysenko's position would it be an ad hominem argument to describe Lysenko as a genetics denialist? When does ideologically based biases become unacceptable in science? Consider the problem of Lysenkoism. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was the ideological boss of Soviet Genetics research in Stalinist Russia. Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was imposed on Soviet researchers, despite quiet objections. Given Lysenko's denial of the mainstream 20th century genetics theories, and the lack of scientific evidence supporting Lysenko's position would it be an ad hominem argument to describe Lysenko as a genetics denialist? When does ideologically based biases become unacceptable in science?

]]> By: Tomhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2010/06/11/%e2%80%9c%e2%80%98denialism%e2%80%99-has-no-place-in-scientific-debate%e2%80%9d-my-letter-in-nature-medicine/comment-page-1/#comment-34761 Tom Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:37:59 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=29294#comment-34761 My reply became a mini-essay about denial and conspiracy. It's a bit too long to post here! The link is below. <a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/thomas-poole/its-a-conspiracy/404012782667" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/notes/thomas-poole/its-a-...</a> My reply became a mini-essay about denial and conspiracy. It's a bit too long to post here! The link is below.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/thomas-poole/its-a-…

]]>