Global warming (was: leps-list sleeping)

Neil Jones neil at
Fri Jul 11 05:36:43 EDT 2003

aa6g at (Chuck Vaughn) wrote in message news:<B696BE42-B2F7-11D7-9814-000393ABD4BA at>...
> Neil,
> I've read you for years. I know how you work. Anyone who disagrees with 
> your positions you attack as anti-environmentalist, anti-science, 
> stupid, etc. It's really grown to be quite tiring. Did you read this?

I debunk lots of untruths. Remember Betty Swallocks? I had to be the
one to point out that fraud.

> I suppose you'll find some way to attack the 17,000 scientists who 
> disagree with the global warming premise.

I actually don't need to do that to debunk your argument. This is
lousy science you know. Your argument violates one of the basic
precepts of logic. It is another one of those ancient fallacies with a
Latin name, "Argumentum ad numerum"- argument by numbers. Something
isn't true because a lot of people believe in it but because it is
logically congruent. At one time most people believed the earth was
flat, they were all wrong!

This is another gift to PETA. Another example of unscientific thinking
in a lepidopterist. How can we be seen as scientists if we don't use
scientific methods.?

As for this "Oregon Petition", you've been had! It is a well known
Kenn put it so well I'm going to quote him again.

"In a couple of your posts, you mentioned the "Oregon Petition" signed
"17,000 scientists."  If you're going to be quoting this, you should
a little more about  it.  The petition is well known, and it's widely
regarded as a bad joke.  It originated with the "Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine," basically a one-man organization based on a
in rural Oregon.  The petition was circulated in a bulk mailing to
of thousands of scientists (the vast majority of whom would not know
anything about climate), accompanied by a bogus document that gave the
appearance of being a peer-reviewed paper, printed in the same
and format as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 
NAS was moved to issue a strongly worded formal statement that it had
connection with the OISM or its weird little petition drive, but by
time, thousands of people (some of whom were scientists) had already
signed the petition.  You can read more about the bizarre and humorous
history of the OISM by going to: "

> >> I can tell from the 3 paragraphs you wrote that you're a climate
> >> alarmist, you hate George Bush and big business, and you're a
> >> conspiracy theorist.
> >
> > I think this is really unfair. In fact if I see any evidence of
> > conspiracy theorising it is from Chuck Vaughn.
> Kenn fits the profile exactly. I've listened to 100's of these people. 
> They all think there are these huge government coverups going on that 
> somehow no one except them  alone or their little group knows about.

The Bush administration's reluctance to do anything about Climate
Change is public knowledge. (At least outside America that is. :-) )

There is nothing that Kenn has said which is confined in knowledge to
just a few people.

> > You see it is quite true that the scientific consensus is, as Kenn
> > states, that there is nothing to debate. Climate change is happening.
> Really! Nothing to debate! How do you explain away the MSU data from 
> the NOAA polar orbiting satellites that do not show rising temperatures 
> in the lower troposphere since 1979? See the graph in the link above.
> There's always climate change over various intervals. Look at Figure 2 
> in the link above and tell me that current trends are an anomaly.
> >
> > No it isn't. You claim there are all these studies and then post a
> > link to one of the most notorious political propaganda organisations.
> Just as I said. You disagree with it so you attack it. I'm sure you 
> know about this site:
> I suppose comments on published peer reviewed papers aren't good enough 
> for you either. You'll find some way to attack it because it doesn't 
> fit your ideology.

Actually you are right it is a matter of ideology. My ideology is the
scientific method . I believe nothing, on either side of the argument,
unless it conforms to proper logic. The site in question would me more
accurately named
co2propaganda . Given enough scientific papers and a biased selective
quoting strategy you can probably argue just about anything is true.
This stuff isn't science. It is propaganda produced by people whose
paid employement is to produce arguments to justify their masters'
position. Science is a search for the truth.

Neil Jones- Neil at
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list