Article View: bit.ecology
Article #174Global Warming Q -Reply
From: SUTTON.JAMES
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:00
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:00
57 lines
2986 bytes
2986 bytes
"lcochran@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU" responded to someone in the
following way, all in regard to an apparently bogus paper from some
apparently bogus organization:
I also received this in the mail, and since the publication had no
indication of any journal I pretty much assumed it was bogus and tossed
it.
Somehow the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" reminded me of
the
creation science institutes. I assume that if this really exists, it's
some sort of similar institute with no credentials or standing in the
scientific community. Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole thing smelled
fishy.
Sutton.james@epamail.epa.gov (AKA "ictiobus@aol.com") respondeth:
I quite agree. It's also like the local "Christian" academies, set up to avoid
education.
Anyway, I did an AltaVista search for both the "Oregon Institute Of
Science and Medicine" and "George C. Marshall Institute." I got about 94
possibles for the OISM, none of which were very productive but I did get
leads to a paper by two Robinsons on this issue and links to Steve
Milloy's Junkscience page so there may be some connection with this
"organization." I didn't have time to pursue it through the Web-maze.
Perhaps others could and report back.
With regard to the Marshall Institute, I found much more valid information.
This is a real organization and it is aimed at debunking greenhouse
effects, global warming, and god knows what else. They have a page
that is worth a short visit at "http://www.marshall.org". Listed as board
members (I think) were such environment experts as Bruce Ames and
one of the authors of the paper (Baliukas or something like that, I didn't
write it down). Most of these people are apparently not ecologists or
environmental scientists. If others want to check that out further (or is it
"farther?"), great!
Lastly, has anyone seen an NRC report referred to by some pages I read
(Junkscience?) which is purported to say that enhanced CO2 effects,
including GW) will have minimal effects on the environment and will not
be an ecological disaster? I have searched the NRC site but there's too
much to go through.
If anyone responds today, please use my AOL address... I'm not going
back over there this weekend... it's too depressing... just like those
miserable psalms!
Jim Sutton
QA MANAGER - US EPA
Neurotoxicology Division
RTP NC
"You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is
justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere
damnable and detestable curiosity."
C. Darwin, in an 1871letter
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<199803212117.NAA22771@igc7.igc.o>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10dd57,f3ee776003f60bfa,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10dd57,public From: SUTTON.JAMES@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Global Warming Q -Reply Date: 1998/03/21 Message-ID: <199803212117.NAA22771@igc7.igc.o> X-Deja-AN: 336377191 Sender: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU X-Gateway: notes@gn.apc.org Newsgroups: bit.ecology