100 Plus Scientists Rebuke Obama As "Simply Incorrect" On Global Warming
oonbz
March 30 2009
More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as 'simply incorrect' on global warming,
Note:
Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed
their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical.
Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for
President in an October 29, 2008 letter.
HTML Version: www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html
Pdf Version: www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf
Please download the PDF file to read FULL report
File attachment: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama.pdf
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=3133
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
Baldin Lee Pramer
lease download the PDF file to read FULL report
>
> File attachment: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama.pdf
That must be close to all the scientists in the whole world!!!!!!
Pramer
RF
That was just 100 brain-dead Republicans :-)
oonbz
"Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caf465d4-954f-4460...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
****************************************************************
Most true scientists are too afraid of speaking out against the agenda for fear of losing
their jobs and lucrative grants.
This explains why many of the outspoken are retired.
They have nothing to lose by telling the truth about the global warming scam.
The lefties have infiltrated many formerly respectable organisations and they brook no
dissent!!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
Earl Evleth
<oo...@o.com> wrote:
> Most true scientists are too afraid of speaking out against the agenda for
> fear of losing their jobs and lucrative grants.
Academics do not lose their jobs in that fashion. Tenure provides guarantees
and to fire a tenure professor requires special circumstances (like
scientific fraud). You have no academic experiences so would not know.
Grants are rarely lucrative. They are always under what one needs, it is
like running an under capitalized small business. Grants are awarded
if the research proposal is given high marks by a grants committee.
This can have as many as 10 members. In that sense the standards of
receiving one are higher than having a paper accepted for publication.
A grant of $100,000 is zilch, top people get a lot more and have
a number running at the same time. I nave profited financially from
a grant, I funded students and postdocs but can't remember touching
a cent of the grant, there was not enough money for me to do so.
These days $100,000 might fund a postdoc for one year, including
expenses and university overhead. If you knew hàw much an individual
was receiving you can judge their position in the hierarchy.
You have never had a grant have you?
Next the list of the scientists. One would have to looking at each person
to find out if they are actively working now in the climate area and
regularly published. Some are retired so probably are not. I knew one
of them while I was at IBM, he is not a climate scientist and a manager
when I knew him 40 years ago.
Richard S. Courtney is a phony, that has been long established.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney.
It is not even confirmed that he has a Ph.D. Anyway, I am not
prepare to take the air out of this particular disinformation.
The list is a hodgepodge list with a few authentics.
€ Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
€ Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
€ Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
€ J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
€ Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
€ Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
€ Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
€ David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
€ John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
€ Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
€ Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
€ Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
€ John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
€ Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
€ Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
€ Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa,
Ottawa, Canada
€ Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
€ Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
€ Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
€ Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On
Climate Change
€ Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
€ Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
€ Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
€ James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
€ David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
€ Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
€ David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
€ Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy
Conversion The Ohio State University
€ Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
€ John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
€ Upon Tyne (retired)
€ Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
€ Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
€ Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
€ Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
€ Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
€ Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
€ Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
€ Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
€ James Goodridge, California State Climatologist (retired)
€ Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
€ Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
€ William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
€ Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
€ Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
€ Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
€ Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut (emeritus)
€ Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona (emeritus)
€ Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy (retired)
€ Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
€ Bernd Huettner, Ph.D
€ Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
€ A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum
Geologists
€ Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And
Global Change
€ Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
€ Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
€ Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate
Change
€ Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University (emeritus)
€ Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm (emeritus)
€ Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia
(emeritus)
€ David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And
Industrial Research
€ Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
€ Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science
And Technology Forum, South Africa
€ Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
€ Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
€ James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
€ Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
€ Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
€ Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
€ Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
€ James F. Lea, Ph.D
€ Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
€ Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
€ David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
€ Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
€ Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources
Working Group
€ Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
€ Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical
School
€ Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
€ Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
€ Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
€ James A Marusek, U.S. Navy (retired)
€ Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
€ Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
€ Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
€ Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center,
Meteorological Institute, Norway
€ Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
€ Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
€ Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
€ David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
€ Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
€ Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
€ Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
€ Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
€ Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
€ Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
€ John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
€ Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
€ Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
€ Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
€ Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
€ Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
€ Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
€ Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
€ Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of
Reclamation
€ George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
€ Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
€ Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
€ Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
€ Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
€ Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
€ Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On
Climate Change
€ Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
€ Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
€ Miklos Zagoni,Ph.D Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate
Change
€ Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists
Earl Evleth
<R...@NoDen.con> wrote:
> That was just 100 brain-dead Republicans :-)
Possibly not all, but note that Inhofe's famous 400
has shrunk to 100 in this list.
I object to certain people on this list that we know
are phony.
Fran
> On 31/03/09 8:14, in article 49d1b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "oonbz"
>
> <oo...@o.com> wrote:
> > Most true scientists are too afraid of speaking out against the agenda for
> > fear of losing their jobs and lucrative grants.
>
> Academics do not lose their jobs in that fashion. Tenure provides guarantees
> and to fire a tenure professor requires special circumstances (like
> scientific fraud). You have no academic experiences so would not know.
>
> Grants are rarely lucrative. They are always under what one needs, it is
> like running an under capitalized small business. Grants are awarded
> if the research proposal is given high marks by a grants committee.
> This can have as many as 10 members. In that sense the standards of
> receiving one are higher than having a paper accepted for publication.
> A grant of $100,000 is zilch, top people get a lot more and have
> a number running at the same time. I nave profited financially from
> a grant, I funded students and postdocs but can't remember touching
> a cent of the grant, there was not enough money for me to do so.
> These days $100,000 might fund a postdoc for one year, including
> expenses and university overhead. If you knew hàw much an individual
> was receiving you can judge their position in the hierarchy.
>
> You have never had a grant have you?
>
> Next the list of the scientists. One would have to looking at each person
> to find out if they are actively working now in the climate area and
> regularly published. Some are retired so probably are not. I knew one
> of them while I was at IBM, he is not a climate scientist and a manager
> when I knew him 40 years ago.
>
> It is not even confirmed that he has a Ph.D. Anyway, I am not
> prepare to take the air out of this particular disinformation.
>
> The list is a hodgepodge list with a few authentics.
>
I'll pick some at random ...
> € Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
> € Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
> € Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
> € J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
> € Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
> € Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
> € Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
> € David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
> € John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
> € Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
> € Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Member of the "Scientific Alliance," an organization formed by a UK
businessman who was fed up with "all this environmental stuff." has
many industry-funded scientists involved with it.Scientific Alliance
was set up by Robert Durward and a public relations firm called
“Foresight Communications.” Originally, Durward, owner of a rock
quarry in the UK, formed the Alliance out of frustration over an
aggregate tax being proposed for the quarry industry.
(Desmogblog)
It's not clear what kind of scientist this chap is, but he has no
google scholar entries. He does come up on this list ona site called
"I love CO2".
> € Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center,
> Meteorological Institute, Norway
> € Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
> € Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
> € Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
> € David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
> € Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
> € Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
> € Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
> € Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
> € Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
> € Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
> € John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
> € Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
This one is interesting. Firstly, he is the young and the recipient of
grants from the ARC:
|||
ARC Discovery 2002-2004 Wonky Holes
ARC Discovery 2005-2007 Residence Time of the GBR
ARC Discovery 2005-2007 Biosensor for Nutrient Analysis
ARC Linkage 2005-2007 Seagrasses
ARC LEIF 2005 Oceanographic Equipment
ARC LEIF 2005 Sediment Analysis Equipment
ARC Discovery 2004 PIV equipment
|||
So he isn't scared. We now have a government committed to GHG
mitigation and he is on this list, so Bonzo's claim is nonsense.
Look at his consultancy list:
|||
Environmental monitoring contracts have been done for TPA/Sinclair
Knight, Ok Tedi Mining, Lihir Mining, Freeport Indonesia, GHD, WBM,
EPA, Environment Australia, Ports Corp of Qld., GBRMPA, Maunsell,
KBR.
|||
So he's doing work for many of the the big polluters.
> € Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
> € Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
> € Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
> € Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
> € Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
> € Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
> € Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of
> Reclamation
> € George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
> € Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
> € Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
> € Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
> € Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
> € Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
> € Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On
> Climate Change
from the Leipzig Declaration group and employed by the Association of
German Coal Producers
> € Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
> € Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
> € Miklos Zagoni,Ph.D Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate
> Change
> € Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists
Fran
Earl Evleth
b9ebdc50-589c-4ddc...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com, "Fran"
<Fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Originally, Durward, owner of a rock
> quarry in the UK, formed the Alliance out of frustration over an
> aggregate tax being proposed for the quarry industry.
Thanks for the information.
Curious that he got involved since I don't see a global warming issue
involved in the quarry industry. If he is mining limestone and
that is being kilned to quicklime that does add CO2 to the atmosphere.
However quarrying for rock alone is another issue.
An environmental issue might well be present and that is the possible
connection.
Where there is a well organize anti-group there is private money involved.
Both Cato and the American Enterprise institutes are involved and they
have big private money contributors, ironically with some tax relief.
Eric Gisin
"Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caf465d4-954f-4460...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
MarvAlbert'sPanties
He needs to get off his rhino-rump in his 16,000 sq. ft. mansion and
send his Nobel back to the committee with a note:
"I'm so sorry. Returning herewith my prize, which I now acknowledge
was awarded and accepted under false pretenses."
--- Sincerely,
Al Gore
James
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C5F7F295.1651DF%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
How quick the far left (AGWs) are willing to crap on their former
heroes. Tsk.
Earl Evleth
<gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> They are the brave ethical scientists whose funding doesn't rely on our
> loony-left governments.
Here in France we have a right of center government at this movement
and likely to remain in power for years (elections only come once
every 5 years and we had one two years ago).
In fact this governments policy on climate is about what the previous
government's is. The main skeptic in France is Claude Allègre who
was official socialist. His science is generally respected but
he has the reputation of a lose canon going off into tangents at time.
He has psychological profile which is generally exceptionalist
not wanting to be with the majority on any issue.
I would call him a type 8 personality around level 5
www.promouvoir-enneagramme.com/index.php?rubrique=3043
Niveau 5 : Ils commencent à dominer leur environnement, y compris les
autres. Ils voudraient sentir que les autres sont derrière eux et
soutiennent leurs efforts. Fanfarons, vantards, exigeants, et expansifs : le
« chef » dont la parole est la loi. Fiers, égocentriques, ils voudraient
imposer leur volonté et leur vision sur tout et ne cèdent jamais, ne voyant
pas les autres comme leurs égaux, ni ne les traitant avec respect.
****
This level describes him fairly well although he is less extreme
that a level 5. He has a higher opinion of himself that others do,
however.
"Il a été ministre de l'Éducation nationale, de la Recherche et de la
Technologie dans le gouvernement Lionel Jospin de 1997"
so he had a high ministerial position but virtually nobody succeeds
ias Minister of Education well. One of my colleagues whom I knew
well served in this position for a while but it destroyed him politically.
He went down hill after than losing favor as being an upcoming
candidate for higher positions. If you want to set up somebody for defeat
who is your political enemy (in your own party) to give him that post!
He switched to the right and Sarkozy has given him some minor function
off a dark corner somewhere. My guess is that his political influence
is low and his position on solar warming has not helped-it is not
politically correct in France. It is scientifically OK, however
since that can be argued on in meetings or in articles. He sunk
his own ship long ago by having a grande gueule outside of science
and in the area of educational policy.
marcodbeast
Your response appears to be meant for another thread. lol
Fran
>
> <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Originally, Durward, owner of a rock
> > quarry in the UK, formed the Alliance out of frustration over an
> > aggregate tax being proposed for the quarry industry.
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> Curious that he got involved since I don't see a global warming issue
> involved in the quarry industry. If he is mining limestone and
> that is being kilned to quicklime that does add CO2 to the atmosphere.
> However quarrying for rock alone is another issue.
>
I suspect it's just an extractive industry thing. These people don't
like environmental legislation or ordinary citizens getting in the way
when they are digging up stuff and hauling it away.
> An environmental issue might well be present and that is the possible
> connection.
>
> Where there is a well organize anti-group there is private money involved.
> Both Cato and the American Enterprise institutes are involved and they
> have big private money contributors, ironically with some tax relief.
Exactly.
We should make it our business to go through this list and one by one
expose the individuals on it to scrutiny.
Fran
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
>On 31/03/09 13:26, in article
>b9ebdc50-589c-4ddc...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com, "Fran"
><Fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Originally, Durward, owner of a rock
>> quarry in the UK, formed the Alliance out of frustration over an
>> aggregate tax being proposed for the quarry industry.
>
>Thanks for the information.
>
>Curious that he got involved since I don't see a global warming issue
>involved in the quarry industry. If he is mining limestone and
>that is being kilned to quicklime that does add CO2 to the atmosphere.
>However quarrying for rock alone is another issue.
Even if just quarrying rock alone, it may be sold to those who will
kiln it and if they are taxed hard it affects business, anyway.
However, it seems his sights are indeed higher than just some quarry:
From Source Watch, "Robert Durward is based in Scotland where he
operates a granite quarry company which he formed in 1982. In 1999,
he formed the British Aggregates Association to 'help protect
independent quarry firms from adverse legislation and unfair
competition.'"
"* Director, British Aggregates Association
* Chairman (and, according to a BBC report "bankroller") of
The New Party (a.k.a. the People's Alliance)
* One-time contact for the Scientific Alliance"
"The New Party (a.k.a. the People's Alliance) is a new UK party which
promotes 'direct democracy' and deregulation."
That doesn't appear to be someone focused narrowly.
Jon
lishi
> On 31/03/09 8:14, in article 49d1b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "oonbz"
>
> <oo...@o.com> wrote:
> > Most true scientists are too afraid of speaking out against the agenda for
> > fear of losing their jobs and lucrative grants.
>
> Academics do not lose their jobs in that fashion. Tenure provides guarantees
> and to fire a tenure professor requires special circumstances (like
> scientific fraud). You have no academic experiences so would not know.
>
> Grants are rarely lucrative. They are always under what one needs, it is
> like running an under capitalized small business. Grants are awarded
> if the research proposal is given high marks by a grants committee.
> This can have as many as 10 members. In that sense the standards of
> receiving one are higher than having a paper accepted for publication.
> A grant of $100,000 is zilch, top people get a lot more and have
> a number running at the same time. I nave profited financially from
> a grant, I funded students and postdocs but can't remember touching
> a cent of the grant, there was not enough money for me to do so.
> These days $100,000 might fund a postdoc for one year, including
> expenses and university overhead. If you knew hàw much an individual
> was receiving you can judge their position in the hierarchy.
>
> You have never had a grant have you?
>
> Next the list of the scientists. One would have to looking at each person
> to find out if they are actively working now in the climate area and
> regularly published. Some are retired so probably are not. I knew one
> of them while I was at IBM, he is not a climate scientist and a manager
> when I knew him 40 years ago.
>
Wow, that is like the justice league!
Earl Evleth
21f7528d-ab96-491e...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, "lishi"
<hul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists
He is a scientists, well known but climate was not his field of expertise.
He is around 80, an age where scientists have to be careful what they
say if the have the public ear.
One of my Caltech Professors, Linus Pauling, lost a bit of his historic
luster when in old age got off on the Vitamin C kick, recommending
taking megadoses to fight this or that. His area of professional
expertise was broad, he was one of the first chemists to get
into quantum mechanics in the early 1930s. His book, the
"Nature of the Chemical Bond" is cited as one of the best 10 in the
field. He did work in associated medical areas but clearly in his
80s he went a little nutty over vitamin C and forgot to apply
the rigor of the scientific method in proving that is position
was supported by the facts. The man remains an icon for me
but it would have been an untarnished one if he had not
done what he did in old age.
****
The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (1901-1994), was the only person ever to win two
unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and
for peace in 1962. He contributed greatly to the development of chemical
theories. His impact on the health marketplace, however, was anything but
laudable.
Pauling is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses
of vitamin C are effective against colds and other illnesses. In 1968, he
postulated that people's needs for vitamins and other nutrients vary
markedly and that to maintain good health, many people need amounts of
nutrients much greater than the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). And
he speculated that megadoses of certain vitamins and minerals might well be
the treatment of choice for some forms of mental illness. He termed this
approach "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." After that, he
steadily expanded the list of illnesses he believed could be influenced by
"orthomolecular" therapy and the number of nutrients suitable for such use.
No responsible medical or nutrition scientists share these views.
Vitamin C and the Common Cold
In 1970, Pauling announced in Vitamin C and the Common Cold that taking
1,000 mg of vitamin C daily will reduce the incidence of colds by 45% for
most people but that some people need much larger amounts [1]. (The RDA for
vitamin C is 60 mg.) The 1976 revision of the book, retitled Vitamin C,
the Common Cold and the Flu, suggested even higher dosages [2]. A third
book, Vitamin C and Cancer (1979) claims that high doses of vitamin C may
be effective against cancer. Yet another book, How to Feel Better and Live
Longer (1986), stated that megadoses of vitamins "can improve your general
health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling
heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process
of aging." [3] Pauling himself reportedly took at least 12,000 mg daily and
raised the amount to 40,000 mg if symptoms of a cold appear [4]. In 1993,
after undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, Pauling said that
vitamin C had delayed the cancer's onset for twenty years. This was not a
testable claim. He died of the disease in August 1994.
Scientific fact is established when the same experiment is carried out over
and over again with the same results. To test the effect of vitamin C on
colds, it is necessary to compare groups which get the vitamin to similar
groups which get a placebo (a dummy pill which looks like the real thing).
Since the common cold is a very variable illness, proper tests must involve
hundreds of people for significantly long periods of time. At least 16
well-designed, double-blind studies have shown that supplementation with
vitamin C does not prevent colds and at best may slightly reduce the
symptoms of a cold [5]. Slight symptom reduction may occur as the result
of an antihistamine-like effect, but whether this has practical value is a
matter of dispute. Pauling's views are based on the same studies considered
by other scientists, but his analyses are flawed.
The largest clinical trials, involving thousands of volunteers, were
directed by Dr. Terence Anderson, professor of epidemiology at the
University of Toronto [6-9]. Taken together, his studies suggest that extra
vitamin C may slightly reduce the severity of colds, but it is not
necessary to take the high doses suggested by Pauling to achieve this
result. Nor is there anything to be gained by taking vitamin C supplements
year-round in the hope of preventing colds.
Another important study was reported in 1975 by scientists at the National
Institutes of Health who compared vitamin C pills with a placebo before and
during colds. Although the experiment was supposed to be double-blind, half
the subjects were able to guess which pill they were getting. When the
results were tabulated with all subjects lumped together, the vitamin
group reported fewer colds per person over a nine-month period. But among
the half who hadn't guessed which pill they had been taking, no difference
in the incidence or severity was found [10]. This illustrates how people
who think they are doing something effective (such as taking a vitamin) can
report a favorable result even when none exists.
Vitamin C and Cancer
In 1976, Pauling and Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that
a majority of one hundred "terminal" cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg
of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar
patients who did not receive vitamin C supplements [11,12]. However, Dr.
William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer
Institute, found that the study was poorly designed because the patient
groups were not comparable [13]. The vitamin C patients were Cameron's,
while the other patients were under the care of other physicians. Cameron's
patients were started on vitamin C when he labeled them "untreatable" by
other methods, and their subsequent survival was compared to the survival
of the "control" patients after they were labeled untreatable by their
doctors. DeWys reasoned that if the two groups were comparable, the lengths
of time from entry into the hospital to being labeled untreatable should be
equivalent in both groups. However, he found that Cameron's patients were
labeled untreatable much earlier in the course of their disease仇hich means
that they entered the hospital before they were as sick as the other
doctors' patients and would naturally be expected to live longer.
Nevertheless, to test whether Pauling might be correct, the Mayo Clinic
conducted three double-blind studies involving a total of 367 patients with
advanced cancer. The studies, reported in 1979, 1983, and 1985, found that
patients given 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily did no better than those given
a placebo [14-16]. Pauling criticized the first study, claiming that
chemotherapeutic agents might have suppressed the patients' immune systems
so that vitamin C couldn't work [17]. But his 1976 report on Cameron's work
stated clearly that: "All patients are treated initially in a perfectly
conventional way, by operation, use of radiotherapy, and the administration
of hormones and cytotoxic substances." And during a subsequent talk at the
University of Arizona, he stated that vitamin C therapy could be used along
with all conventional modalities [18]. The participants in the 1983 study
had not undergone conventional treatment, but Pauling dismissed its results
anyway.
Science aside, it is clear that Pauling was politically aligned with the
promoters of unscientific nutrition practices. He said his initial interest
in vitamin C was aroused by a letter from biochemist Irwin Stone, with whom
he subsequently maintained a close working relationship. Although Stone was
often referred to as "Dr. Stone," his only credentials were a certificate
showing completion of a two-year chemistry program, an honorary
chiropractic degree from the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, and a
"Ph.D." from Donsbach University, a nonaccredited correspondence school.
In a little-publicized chapter in Vitamin C and the Common Cold, Pauling
attacked the health-food industry for misleading its customers. Pointing
out that "synthetic" vitamin C is identical with "natural" vitamin C, he
warned that higher-priced "natural" products are a "waste of money." And he
added that "the words 'organically grown' are essentially meaningless桔ust
part of the jargon used by health-food promoters in making their excess
profits, often from elderly people with low incomes." But Vitamin C, the
Common Cold and the Flu, issued six years later, contained none of these
criticisms. This omission was not accidental. In response to a letter,
Pauling informed me that, after his first book came out, he was "strongly
attacked by people who were also attacking the health-food people." His
critics were so "biased," he decided, that he would no longer help them
attack the health-food industry while another part of their attack was
directed at him [19].
The Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine was founded in 1973 and
operated under that name until 1995 [20]. The institute was dedicated to
"orthomolecular medicine." For many years, its largest corporate donor was
Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the
world's vitamin C. Many of the institute's fundraising brochures contained
questionable information. During the 1980s, for example, they falsely stated
that no significant progress had been made in cancer treatment during the
previous twenty years.
A dispute between Pauling and Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., gives additional
evidence of Pauling's defense of vitamin C megadosage was less than honest.
Robinson, a former student and long-time associate of Pauling, helped found
the institute and became its first president. According to an investigative
report by James Lowell, Ph.D., in Nutrition Forum newsletter, Robinson's
own research led him to conclude in 1978 that the high doses (5-10 grams
per day) of vitamin C being recommended by Pauling might actually promote
some types of cancer in mice [18]. Robinson told Lowell, for example, that
animals fed quantities equivalent to Pauling's recommendations contracted
skin cancer almost twice as frequently as the control group and that only
doses of vitamin C that were nearly lethal had any protective effect.
Shortly after reporting this to Pauling, Robinson was asked to resign from
the institute, his experimental animals were killed, his scientific data
were impounded, and some of the previous research results were destroyed.
Pauling also declared publicly that Robinson's research was "amateurish"
and inadequate. Robinson responded by suing the Institute and its trustees.
In 1983, the suit was settled out of court for $575,000. In an interview
quoted in Nature, Pauling said that the settlement "represented no more
than compensation for loss of office and the cost of Robinson's legal
fees." However, the court-approved agreement stated that $425,000 of the
settlement was for slander and libel. The Institute's own legal fees were
close to a million dollars [21].
In 1994, Robinson and two colleagues summarized the results of four mouse
studies he had carried out while working at the Pauling Institute [22].
Nearly all of the mice developed skin cancers (squamous cell carcinomas)
following exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Altogether, 1,846 hairless
mice received a total of 38 different diets. The researchers found that (a)
the rate of onset and severity of tumors could be varied as much as 20-fold
by just modifying dietary balance; (b) diets with the worst balance of
nutrients had the greatest inhibitory effect on cancer growth; and (c) no
cures or remissions were observed (although the researchers were not
looking for this). In 1999, Robinson commented:
The results of these experiments caused an argument between Linus and me,
which ended our 16-year period of work together. He was not willing to
accept the experimentally proved fact that vitamin C in ordinary doses
accelerated the growth rate of squamous cell carcinoma in these mice.
At the time, Linus was promoting his claim that "75% of all cancer can be
prevented and cured by vitamin C alone." This claim proved to be without
experimental foundation and not true. . . . Vitamin C increased the rate of
growth of cancer at human equivalents of 1 to 5 grams per day, but
suppressed the cancer growth rate at doses on the order of 100 grams per
day (near the lethal dose), as do other measures of malnutrition [23].
Recent laboratory studies have found that vitamin C may interfere with the
effectiveness of five anti-cancer drugs. First, the researchers gave a
vitamin C product to cancer cells that were treated with chemotherapy and
found that the 30% to 70% fewer cancer cells were killed. Then they injected
mice with cancer cells, administered chemotherapy, and found that cells grew
into tumors much faster in the mice that received pre-treatment vitamin C.
The researchers warned that although results in animals are not necessarily
applicable to humans, vitamin C supplementation during cancer treatment may
interfere with the effect of chemotherapy in humans [24].
Other Questionable Activities
During the mid-1970s, Pauling helped lead the health-food industry's
campaign for a federal law that weakened FDA protection of consumers
against misleading nutrition claims. In 1977 and 1979, Pauling received
awards and presented his views on vitamin C at the annual conventions of
the National Nutritional Foods Association (the major trade association of
health-food retailers, distributors and producers). In 1981, he accepted an
award from the National Health Federation (NHF) for "services rendered in
behalf of health freedom" and gave his daughter a life membership in this
organization. NHF promotes the gamut of quackery. Many of its leaders have
been in legal difficulty and some have even received prison sentences for
various "health" activities. Pauling also spoke at a Parker School for
Professional Success Seminar, a meeting where chiropractors were taught
highly questionable methods of building their practices. An ad for the
meeting invited chiropractors to pose with Pauling for a photograph (which
presumably could be used for publicity when the chiropractors returned
home).
In 1981, after learning that Pauling had donated money to NHF (for his
daughter's life membership), I asked whether he knew about NHF's shady
background and the fact that it was the leading antifluoridation force in
the United States. I also asked whether he cared that the money might be
used to help fight fluoridation. In a series of letters, he replied that
he: (a) strongly supported fluoridation, (b) was aware of NHF's opposition,
(c) had tried to pressure the organization to change its views, (d) had
spoken out for it often and over many years, and (e) thought other issues
were more important [19]. He also sent me a profluoridation statement he
had issued in 1967 [25]. His claim that he had spoken out for fluoridation
surprised me. Although I have read thousands of documents related to
Pauling's views and activities, I had never encountred any other indication
that he had publicly supported fluoridation.
In 1983, Pauling and Irwin Stone testified at a hearing on behalf of Oscar
Falconi, a vitamin promoter charged by the Postal Service with making false
claims for several products. Pauling supported Falconi's contentions that
vitamin C was useful not only in preventing cancer, but also in curing drug
addicts and destroying both viruses and bacteria. The Administrative Law
Judge concluded that Pauling could not substantiate his claims [26].
Pauling also testified in 1984 before the California Board of Medical
Quality Assurance in defense of Michael Gerber, M.D., who was accused of
improperly administering to patients. One was a 56-year-old woman with
treatable cancer who逆he Board concluded吃ad died as a result of Gerber's
neglect while he treated her with herbs, enzymes, coffee enemas, and
chelation therapy. The other patients were three-year-old twin boys with
ear infections for which Gerber had prescribed 70,000 or more units of
vitamin A daily and coffee enemas twice daily for several weeks. Gerber
lost his license to practice medicine as a result of the hearings. He now
practices in Nevada under a homeopathic license.
A flyer distributed in 1991 by the Linus Pauling Institute recommended
daily doses of 6,000 to 18,000 mg of vitamin C, 400 to 1,600 IU of vitamin
E, and 25,000 IU of vitamin A, plus various other vitamins and minerals.
These dosages have no proven benefit and can cause troublesome side
effects.
Today's Linus Pauling Institute
After Pauling died, fundraising appeals expressed concern that his death
would make it more difficult to raise funds to continue the institute's
operations. In 1996, the assets of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science
and Medicine were used to establish the Linus Pauling Institute (LPI) as a
research institute at OSU to investigate the function and role of
micronutrients, phytochemicals and microconstituents of food in maintaining
human health and preventing and treating disease; and to advance the
knowledge in areas which were of interest to Linus Pauling through research
and education [27].
The LPI Web site has excellent articles about the function and role of many
nutrients. Except for vitamin E, the LPI's recommended nutrient levels are
in line with prevailing scientific opinions. One article notes that
Pauling's vitamin C recommendations were based on "theoretical arguments"
and that we now have much more scientific information upon which to base
recommendations [28]. This certainly is true but glosses over the fact that
Pauling's meganutrient theories were absurd and were maintained even after
scientific studies refuted them. Overall, however, the LPI is now a
respectable education and research facility.
The Bottom Line
Although Pauling's megavitamin claims lacked the evidence needed for
acceptance by the scientific community, they have been accepted by large
numbers of people who lack the scientific expertise to evaluate them.
Thanks largely to Pauling's prestige, annual vitamin C sales in the United
States have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars for many years.
Pauling also played a role in the health food industry's successful campaign
to weaken FDA consumer protections laws. The Linus Pauling Institute that
bears his name has evolved into a respectable organization. But Pauling's
irrational advice about supplements continues to lead people astray.
Baldin Lee Pramer
> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinleepra...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:caf465d4-954f-4460...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 9:17 pm, "oonbz" <oo...@o.com> wrote:
> lease download the PDF file to read FULL report
>
>
>
> > File attachment: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama.pdf
>
> That must be close to all the scientists in the whole world!!!!!!
> ****************************************************************
>
> Most true scientists are too afraid of speaking out against the agenda for fear of losing
> their jobs and lucrative grants.
You are truly and deeply ignorant. You have no idea of the science of
climate, do you? Not an inkling.
You seem to be *completely* ignorant about how science is done, how
grants are awarded, and how much money a scientist makes from a grant
(hint: it is a pittance. Usually Summer salary. The rest is spent on
supporting students and equipment).
Pramer
Charlie
wrote:
Seems Patriot Games has done a real number on you...afraid to come out
and post or Miss Baldwinny is using another alias. My bet is you're
using another alias.
Lone Ranger
>More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as
>'simply incorrect' on global warming,
WOW, 100 scientists!
Ladies and Gentlemen, in that corner over there we have 100
scientists.
In the other corner we have the national and international science
academies and professional societies in the world. And they have
largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing
body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world
and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger
evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
No known scientific body of national or international standing is
known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent
climate. But you have 100 scientists, you say? Am I supposed to be
impressed? The creationists have 700+ scientists, they say ......
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
I larianov
> Funny how GORE is so silent these days.
>
> He needs to get off his rhino-rump in his 16,000 sq. ft. mansion and
> send his Nobel back to the committee with a note:
>
If only Bush were President and right wing wackos were paid attention
to.
Bwwwaaaahhhhaaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO!
Repugs = the regional minority party of Hillbillies and inbreds that
hate science.