| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"asdf" |
| Date: |
26 Apr 2007 01:22:34 PM |
| Object: |
hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885820280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
.
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 01:48:03 PM |
|
|
On 26 Apr 2007 11:22:34 -0700, asdf <qjohnny2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885820280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Do you suppose he knows that CO2 increase isn't the cause of
global warming, but instead is an effect produced by global
warming?
Cover again that area which used to be covered with ice. This
would reflect more solar radiation back into space. With ice over
all the upper latitudes, the soil bacteria under the ice sheet
should cease to flourish and the CO2 this bacteria releases would
be much less. Atmospheric CO2 should drop and global atmospheric
temperatures should also drop. If you can find a way to do this
we might be back to square one. But, do we really want the ice
sheet to extend down to the 40th latitude? This surely would put
a bite on the life styles of the people in the northern
latitudes. We'd probably have a Canadian immigration into the
southern parts of the U.S.A. that would exceed the Latino
immigration of today, but where would we grow the cereal grains
to feed everyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 08:01:25 PM |
|
|
"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:nds1339av7el80vr1d77buq7i5lvvjj65e@4ax.com...
On 26 Apr 2007 11:22:34 -0700, asdf <qjohnny2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885820280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Do you suppose he knows that CO2 increase isn't the cause of
global warming, but instead is an effect produced by global
warming?
Cover again that area which used to be covered with ice. This
would reflect more solar radiation back into space. With ice over
all the upper latitudes, the soil bacteria under the ice sheet
should cease to flourish and the CO2 this bacteria releases would
be much less. Atmospheric CO2 should drop and global atmospheric
temperatures should also drop. If you can find a way to do this
we might be back to square one. But, do we really want the ice
sheet to extend down to the 40th latitude? This surely would put
a bite on the life styles of the people in the northern
latitudes. We'd probably have a Canadian immigration into the
southern parts of the U.S.A. that would exceed the Latino
immigration of today, but where would we grow the cereal grains
to feed everyone?
And we'd have to learn to speak Canadian to communicate with the new
immigrants.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Hays" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 02:32:50 PM |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
CO2 increase isn't the cause of global
warming, but instead is an effect produced by global warming?
Not one, not two, not three, but four.
The standard climate physics explanation is that humans are releasing
massive amount of CO2, much of which is accumulating in the atmosphere,
and as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is warming the climate.
So if the standard climate physics is wrong, and the observed CO2
increase is caused by climate warming, the standard physics needs to be
wrong four ways:
1) While humans are releasing massive amounts of CO2, some unknown factor
must be removing almost all of it.
2) Some other unknown factor must be warming the climate.
3) Some unknown source of CO2 is putting about as much CO2 into the
atmosphere as humans are, and the unknown factor one isn't removing any
of it. Or if the unknown factor one is removing most of this extra CO2,
then the unknown source needs to be that much larger. Oh yes, and this
unknown source needs to match up the isotopic content observed. And O2
balance needs to be maintained.
4) Lastly, some unknown factor must cancel most of the climate effect of
the added CO2.
Let me pull out my Occam's razor.
--
Phil Hays
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
27 Apr 2007 02:07:41 PM |
|
|
On Apr 26, 3:32 pm, Phil Hays <inva...@dont.spam> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
CO2 increase isn't the cause of global
warming, but instead is an effect produced by global warming?
Not one, not two, not three, but four.
The standard climate physics explanation is that humans are releasing
massive amount of CO2, much of which is accumulating in the atmosphere,
and as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is warming the climate.
So if the standard climate physics is wrong, and the observed CO2
increase is caused by climate warming, the standard physics needs to be
wrong four ways:
1) While humans are releasing massive amounts of CO2, some unknown factor
must be removing almost all of it.
2) Some other unknown factor must be warming the climate.
3) Some unknown source of CO2 is putting about as much CO2 into the
atmosphere as humans are, and the unknown factor one isn't removing any
of it. Or if the unknown factor one is removing most of this extra CO2,
then the unknown source needs to be that much larger. Oh yes, and this
unknown source needs to match up the isotopic content observed. And O2
balance needs to be maintained.
4) Lastly, some unknown factor must cancel most of the climate effect of
the added CO2.
Let me pull out my Occam's razor.
--
Phil Hays
And, not unrelated to that, is the complete incoherence of the What-
global-warming? side's "model". I.e.:
There is no warming, if there is warming the satellites don't show it,
the satellites are seeing warming but it's not unusual, maybe it's
unusual but it isn't due to CO2, we're not emitting more CO2, we are
emitting CO2 but it's not building up in the atmosphere, more CO2 will
be good for us, more warmth will be good for us, it's due to the sun,
it's due to cosmic rays.
This is like the defendant who gets cross-examined on the witness
stand and his story changes completely every two minutes. Then the
defense attorney says "Sure, but look at the prosecution witness;
first he said the time was between 3 and 3:30, then later on he said
it was about 3:15! Changing story!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 03:07:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:32:50 GMT, Phil Hays <invalid@dont.spam>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
CO2 increase isn't the cause of global
warming, but instead is an effect produced by global warming?
Not one, not two, not three, but four.
The standard climate physics explanation is that humans are releasing
massive amount of CO2, much of which is accumulating in the atmosphere,
and as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is warming the climate.
What caused the last cold cycle to bottom out about 18,000 years
ago and global warming to get well under way about 13,000 years
ago? Human camp fires???
So if the standard climate physics is wrong, and the observed CO2
increase is caused by climate warming, the standard physics needs to be
wrong four ways:
More on the above question...what caused atmospheric CO2 to begin
increasing some 12 - 10, 000 years ago?
1) While humans are releasing massive amounts of CO2, some unknown factor
must be removing almost all of it.
Not really an unknown factor. Much of the land area that was
covered with ice, 20,000 years ago is now covered with trees,
weeds and/or grasses, and the oceans are supporting a lot more
flora such as kelp. These flora have a known propensity for
harvesting CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in such places
as peat bogs, deep ocean sediments, etc.
2) Some other unknown factor must be warming the climate.
3) Some unknown source of CO2 is putting about as much CO2 into the
atmosphere as humans are, and the unknown factor one isn't removing any
of it. Or if the unknown factor one is removing most of this extra CO2,
then the unknown source needs to be that much larger. Oh yes, and this
unknown source needs to match up the isotopic content observed. And O2
balance needs to be maintained.
Nothing mysterious here. The land area that was covered with ice
20,000 years ago is now thawed out and biologically active. This
includes soil bacteria and these organisms do indeed release a
lot of CO2. The oceans are warmer and ocean fauna now flourishes
at much higher latitudes than it did during the depth of the last
cold cycle.
4) Lastly, some unknown factor must cancel most of the climate effect of
the added CO2.
Sunspot activity and the resultant solar brightness variations
probably dwarf any CO2 effect.
The main point is that these global warming/cooling, glacial,
inter-glacial cycles have been going on for much longer than can
be attributed to any anthropogenic cause/effects. There have to
be some other explanations.
Let me pull out my Occam's razor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Hays" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 03:48:39 PM |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
Phil Hays wrote:
Gordon wrote:
CO2 increase isn't the cause of global warming, but instead is an
effect produced by global warming?
Not one, not two, not three, but four.
The standard climate physics explanation is that humans are releasing
massive amount of CO2, much of which is accumulating in the atmosphere,
and as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is warming the climate.
What caused the last cold cycle to bottom out about 18,000 years ago and
global warming to get well under way about 13,000 years ago? Human camp
fires???
Humans didn't cause the last warming. That proves that humans can't cause
warming. Logic check, please.
So if the standard climate physics is wrong, and the observed CO2
increase is caused by climate warming, the standard physics needs to be
wrong four ways:
More on the above question...what caused atmospheric CO2 to begin
increasing some 12 - 10, 000 years ago?
I don't know. The CO2 had to have come from the oceans, for several
reasons. The oceans are currently a large sink for CO2, so what happened
then isn't happening now.
1) While humans are releasing massive amounts of CO2, some unknown
factor must be removing almost all of it.
Not really an unknown factor. Much of the land area that was covered
with ice, 20,000 years ago is now covered with trees, weeds and/or
grasses, and the oceans are supporting a lot more flora such as kelp.
These flora have a known propensity for harvesting CO2 from the
atmosphere and storing it in such places as peat bogs, deep ocean
sediments, etc.
Why doesn't the trees, weeds and/or grasses, and the ocean's flora remove
the excess CO2 produced by soil bacteria, from the fourth point?
2) Some other unknown factor must be warming the climate.
<copied, as there was no reply to point 2>
Sunspot activity and the resultant solar brightness variations probably
dwarf any CO2 effect.
Then why does the direct observation of solar brightness not show this?
3) Some unknown source of CO2 is putting about as much CO2 into the
atmosphere as humans are, and the unknown factor one isn't removing any
of it. Or if the unknown factor one is removing most of this extra CO2,
then the unknown source needs to be that much larger. Oh yes, and this
unknown source needs to match up the isotopic content observed. And O2
balance needs to be maintained.
Nothing mysterious here. The land area that was covered with ice 20,000
years ago is now thawed out and biologically active. This includes soil
bacteria and these organisms do indeed release a lot of CO2. The oceans
are warmer and ocean fauna now flourishes at much higher latitudes than
it did during the depth of the last cold cycle.
So then the biosphere absorbs all of the excess CO2 released by fossil
fuel burning, and then the biosphere releases about the same amount of CO2
because of warming. What an amazing coincidence.
4) Lastly, some unknown factor must cancel most of the climate effect of
the added CO2.
Sunspot activity and the resultant solar brightness variations probably
dwarf any CO2 effect.
The main point is that these global warming/cooling, glacial,
inter-glacial cycles have been going on for much longer than can be
attributed to any anthropogenic cause/effects. There have to be some
other explanations.
Ah yes, but CO2 is now higher than it's been for millions of years.
Why?
--
Phil Hays
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clifford" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 07:26:57 PM |
|
|
"Phil Hays" <invalid@dont.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.26.20.48.36.161607@dont.spam...
Gordon wrote:
Phil Hays wrote:
Gordon wrote:
CO2 increase isn't the cause of global warming, but instead is an
effect produced by global warming?
Not one, not two, not three, but four.
The standard climate physics explanation is that humans are releasing
massive amount of CO2, much of which is accumulating in the atmosphere,
and as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is warming the climate.
What caused the last cold cycle to bottom out about 18,000 years ago and
global warming to get well under way about 13,000 years ago? Human camp
fires???
Humans didn't cause the last warming. That proves that humans can't cause
warming. Logic check, please.
So if the standard climate physics is wrong, and the observed CO2
increase is caused by climate warming, the standard physics needs to be
wrong four ways:
More on the above question...what caused atmospheric CO2 to begin
increasing some 12 - 10, 000 years ago?
I don't know. The CO2 had to have come from the oceans, for several
reasons. The oceans are currently a large sink for CO2, so what happened
then isn't happening now.
1) While humans are releasing massive amounts of CO2, some unknown
factor must be removing almost all of it.
Not really an unknown factor. Much of the land area that was covered
with ice, 20,000 years ago is now covered with trees, weeds and/or
grasses, and the oceans are supporting a lot more flora such as kelp.
These flora have a known propensity for harvesting CO2 from the
atmosphere and storing it in such places as peat bogs, deep ocean
sediments, etc.
Why doesn't the trees, weeds and/or grasses, and the ocean's flora remove
the excess CO2 produced by soil bacteria, from the fourth point?
2) Some other unknown factor must be warming the climate.
<copied, as there was no reply to point 2>
Sunspot activity and the resultant solar brightness variations probably
dwarf any CO2 effect.
Then why does the direct observation of solar brightness not show this?
3) Some unknown source of CO2 is putting about as much CO2 into the
atmosphere as humans are, and the unknown factor one isn't removing any
of it. Or if the unknown factor one is removing most of this extra CO2,
then the unknown source needs to be that much larger. Oh yes, and this
unknown source needs to match up the isotopic content observed. And O2
balance needs to be maintained.
Nothing mysterious here. The land area that was covered with ice 20,000
years ago is now thawed out and biologically active. This includes soil
bacteria and these organisms do indeed release a lot of CO2. The oceans
are warmer and ocean fauna now flourishes at much higher latitudes than
it did during the depth of the last cold cycle.
So then the biosphere absorbs all of the excess CO2 released by fossil
fuel burning, and then the biosphere releases about the same amount of CO2
because of warming. What an amazing coincidence.
4) Lastly, some unknown factor must cancel most of the climate effect of
the added CO2.
Sunspot activity and the resultant solar brightness variations probably
dwarf any CO2 effect.
The main point is that these global warming/cooling, glacial,
inter-glacial cycles have been going on for much longer than can be
attributed to any anthropogenic cause/effects. There have to be some
other explanations.
Ah yes, but CO2 is now higher than it's been for millions of years.
Proof??? Please cite where we have been taking CO2 measurements for millions
of years.
Please don't cite innacurate and debunked proxy data.
Why?
--
Phil Hays
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
28 Apr 2007 09:53:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:48:39 GMT, Phil Hays <invalid@dont.spam>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
Phil Hays wrote:
Gordon wrote:
CO2 increase isn't the cause of global warming, but instead is an
effect produced by global warming?
Not one, not two, not three, but four.
The standard climate physics explanation is that humans are releasing
massive amount of CO2, much of which is accumulating in the atmosphere,
and as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is warming the climate.
What caused the last cold cycle to bottom out about 18,000 years ago and
global warming to get well under way about 13,000 years ago? Human camp
fires???
Humans didn't cause the last warming. That proves that humans can't cause
warming. Logic check, please.
Humans didn't cause the past three global warming periods. Maybe
this indicates we should concentrate on figuring out what did
cause these past warmings and see if it applies to the current
warming instead of just jumping up and down, hollering about
something we don't really understand.
So if the standard climate physics is wrong, and the observed CO2
increase is caused by climate warming, the standard physics needs to be
wrong four ways:
More on the above question...what caused atmospheric CO2 to begin
increasing some 12 - 10, 000 years ago?
I don't know. The CO2 had to have come from the oceans, for several
reasons. The oceans are currently a large sink for CO2, so what happened
then isn't happening now.
Ice sheet melt-off exposing and revitalizing soil that had
previously been in a deep-freeze state of suspended animation
seems to be another plausible explanation.
1) While humans are releasing massive amounts of CO2, some unknown
factor must be removing almost all of it.
Not really an unknown factor. Much of the land area that was covered
with ice, 20,000 years ago is now covered with trees, weeds and/or
grasses, and the oceans are supporting a lot more flora such as kelp.
These flora have a known propensity for harvesting CO2 from the
atmosphere and storing it in such places as peat bogs, deep ocean
sediments, etc.
Why doesn't the trees, weeds and/or grasses, and the ocean's flora remove
the excess CO2 produced by soil bacteria, from the fourth point?
Trees, weeds and grasses do remove CO2, but this is, for the most
part, temporary. That is, these plants rarely put this removed
CO2 into something like coal or deep ocean sediment where the CO2
will remain stored for a long period of time.
2) Some other unknown factor must be warming the climate.
<copied, as there was no reply to point 2>
Sunspot activity and the resultant solar brightness variations probably
dwarf any CO2 effect.
Then why does the direct observation of solar brightness not show this?
It does, in so much as our records are available. Unfortunately
we have not yet found a way to accurately measure sunspot
activity and solar brightness back in the geologic past.
3) Some unknown source of CO2 is putting about as much CO2 into the
atmosphere as humans are, and the unknown factor one isn't removing any
of it. Or if the unknown factor one is removing most of this extra CO2,
then the unknown source needs to be that much larger. Oh yes, and this
unknown source needs to match up the isotopic content observed. And O2
balance needs to be maintained.
Nothing mysterious here. The land area that was covered with ice 20,000
years ago is now thawed out and biologically active. This includes soil
bacteria and these organisms do indeed release a lot of CO2. The oceans
are warmer and ocean fauna now flourishes at much higher latitudes than
it did during the depth of the last cold cycle.
So then the biosphere absorbs all of the excess CO2 released by fossil
fuel burning, and then the biosphere releases about the same amount of CO2
because of warming. What an amazing coincidence.
4) Lastly, some unknown factor must cancel most of the climate effect of
the added CO2.
Sunspot activity and the resultant solar brightness variations probably
dwarf any CO2 effect.
The main point is that these global warming/cooling, glacial,
inter-glacial cycles have been going on for much longer than can be
attributed to any anthropogenic cause/effects. There have to be some
other explanations.
Ah yes, but CO2 is now higher than it's been for millions of years.
Why?
Could it be that we are farther along in this present
interglacial warm phase than the earth ever gotten in previous
interglacial warm periods? We may be about to the point of
falling back into another deep freeze glaciation part of the
cycle. In fact, had it not been for industrial gasses in the
atmosphere we might have slipped back into the next ice age
already. Would we really be better off with permafrost down to
the 45 degree latitude than we are with the present global
warming?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 06:43:12 PM |
|
|
On Apr 26, 11:22 am, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience weightlessness
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
I think you're just jealous that they didn't float your unnotable *****
in the luggage compartment.
Get a grip while you're at it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 05:17:32 PM |
|
|
On Apr 26, 1:22 pm, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885820280&pagename=JPo...
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Stephen Hawking is an excellent symbol for modern professional
science. He's totally incapacitated, he can't even talk, and his
knowledge of the world around him comes entirely from media sources.
Yes, he's intelligent. Yes, he has knowledge of conventional
scientific theories and models. But is he really ideally situated to
develop important new technologies? Should anyone really take him
very seriously?
Honestly, I admire his courage in dealing with his disability, but is
THIS really a great scientist? Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 06:05:57 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1177625852.458804.273920@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 1:22 pm, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
=
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=3D1150885820280&pagename=3DJPo=
....
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
=20
Stephen Hawking is an excellent symbol for modern professional
science. He's totally incapacitated, he can't even talk, and his
knowledge of the world around him comes entirely from media sources.
Yes, he's intelligent. Yes, he has knowledge of conventional
scientific theories and models. But is he really ideally situated to
develop important new technologies? Should anyone really take him
very seriously?
=20
Honestly, I admire his courage in dealing with his disability, but is
THIS really a great scientist? Why?
"It was truly an honour" (haha) to offer him a beer, but the ***** of a=20
first wife he had wheeled his gurney away, I hadn't offered her one=20
first. (Sussex U at Brighton, 1972) At least he got rid of her.
As to his "courage", what is his alternative? Die? Of course he=20
deals with his disability, we all do. Am I courageous because I
have arthritis on my ankle? Of course not.=20
You can pity him, I do to, but I doubt he'd want that anyway.
No, he is not a great scientist, he's another professor making it all up
as he goes along. "Courageous" was admitting he was wrong. That,
at least, I can admire.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=3Ddn6193
Now prove me wrong, let's see how courageous you are.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 06:36:17 PM |
|
|
In article <pfaYh.97451$Zb2.35222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
"It was truly an honour" (haha) to offer him a beer, but the ***** of a
first wife he had wheeled his gurney away, I hadn't offered her one
first. (Sussex U at Brighton, 1972) At least he got rid of her.
As to his "courage", what is his alternative? Die? Of course he
deals with his disability, we all do. Am I courageous because I
have arthritis on my ankle? Of course not.
You can pity him, I do to, but I doubt he'd want that anyway.
No, he is not a great scientist, he's another professor making it all up
as he goes along. "Courageous" was admitting he was wrong. That,
at least, I can admire.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6193
Now prove me wrong, let's see how courageous you are.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Just when you think this looney couldn't sink any lower, Androcles steps up to
the plate and delivers.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
26 Apr 2007 05:25:44 PM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus wrote:
Honestly, I admire his courage in dealing with his disability, but is
THIS really a great scientist?
Yes.
Why?
Because he's smart, passionate about science, and has already produced a
demonstrated body of work in a hard science field. That he is well past
his prime is no matter, his previous work is as hard as they come.
Of course, we had no idea what we were doing back then.
My, how far we have come.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
27 Apr 2007 11:39:48 AM |
|
|
On Apr 26, 6:17 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:22 pm, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885820280&pagename=JPo...
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Stephen Hawking is an excellent symbol for modern professional
science. He's totally incapacitated, he can't even talk, and his
knowledge of the world around him comes entirely from media sources.
Yes, he's intelligent. Yes, he has knowledge of conventional
scientific theories and models. But is he really ideally situated to
develop important new technologies? Should anyone really take him
very seriously?
Honestly, I admire his courage in dealing with his disability, but is
THIS really a great scientist? Why?
How does science work? Do you even know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "UKnowMe" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
27 Apr 2007 11:22:53 AM |
|
|
Igor <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in
news:1177691988.031259.54760@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 26, 6:17 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:22 pm, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience
weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885820280&pagename=JPo
...
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Stephen Hawking is an excellent symbol for modern professional
science. He's totally incapacitated, he can't even talk, and his
knowledge of the world around him comes entirely from media sources.
Yes, he's intelligent. Yes, he has knowledge of conventional
scientific theories and models. But is he really ideally situated
to develop important new technologies? Should anyone really take him
very seriously?
Honestly, I admire his courage in dealing with his disability, but is
THIS really a great scientist? Why?
How does science work? Do you even know?
It works like this,
God => Religion=> Bush => Veto => Scientist => China or India
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
27 Apr 2007 12:58:17 PM |
|
|
UKnowMe wrote:
Igor <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in
news:1177691988.031259.54760@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 26, 6:17 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:22 pm, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so stephen hawking is going up in a jet to experience
weightlessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2066442,00.html
yet he claims to be very worried about global warming:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885820280&pagename=JPo
...
so it's okay for him to spew co2 into the atomosphere for personal
pleasure but the little people
gotta cut back... Oh maybe he is buying carbon offsets ... but it
turns out those don't work that well:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Stephen Hawking is an excellent symbol for modern professional
science. He's totally incapacitated, he can't even talk, and his
knowledge of the world around him comes entirely from media sources.
Yes, he's intelligent. Yes, he has knowledge of conventional
scientific theories and models. But is he really ideally situated
to develop important new technologies? Should anyone really take him
very seriously?
Honestly, I admire his courage in dealing with his disability, but is
THIS really a great scientist? Why?
How does science work? Do you even know?
It works like this,
God => Religion=> Bush => Veto => Scientist => China or India
That's far too complex for your average conservative to understand.
Please allow me to simplify :
Science => Librul.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
27 Apr 2007 02:03:17 PM |
|
|
On Apr 27, 1:58 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Science => Librul.
The climate has an antiBush agenda!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "UKnowMe" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
27 Apr 2007 02:35:36 PM |
|
|
z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in news:1177700597.815512.176880
@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 27, 1:58 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Science => Librul.
The climate has an antiBush agenda!!
Yeah, Just look what that liberal Katrina did to poor ole Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Muehlbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
28 Apr 2007 11:55:13 AM |
|
|
"UKnowMe" <Scratch@wholelottafun.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Xns991FACE07CEE3uKnowMe@66.150.105.231...
z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in news:1177700597.815512.176880
@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 27, 1:58 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Science => Librul.
The climate has an antiBush agenda!!
Yeah, Just look what that liberal Katrina did to poor ole Bush.
Didn't you see the whirling banner inside Katrina with
"Sponsored by Al Gore" on it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "UKnowMe" |
|
| Title: Re: hypocrite hawking to experience weightlessness |
28 Apr 2007 12:02:38 PM |
|
|
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap@frankenexpress.de> wrote in
news:f0vu9j$42c$1@news1.nefonline.de:
"UKnowMe" <Scratch@wholelottafun.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns991FACE07CEE3uKnowMe@66.150.105.231...
z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in news:1177700597.815512.176880
@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 27, 1:58 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Science => Librul.
The climate has an antiBush agenda!!
Yeah, Just look what that liberal Katrina did to poor ole Bush.
Didn't you see the whirling banner inside Katrina with
"Sponsored by Al Gore" on it?
This liberal conspiracy thing-a-magig must be much bigger than anyone ever
thought. It could one of those world changing events. I think we should
save what's left of the Republican party and our leader and catch that
space ship hoovering behind the moon.
How much Koolaid would that take do you think?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bush Lost Iraq War" |
|
| Title: Peter Muehlbauer is a Cho Seung-Hui of Usenet. |
28 Apr 2007 10:43:09 PM |
|
|
Peter Muehlbauer is a Cho Seung-Hui of Usenet.
Peter Muehlbauer is Choosing You to be a victim of Mass Murder.
Like Cho Seung-Hui, Peter Muehlbauer is a sociopath utterly without
pity for his randomly chosen victims -- it's just a violent video game
for him, where he tries for the "most points" using weather of mass
destruction. 20,000 dead in France from Heat Wave, 3,000 wacked in New
Orleans, just points to keep score.
The longer you stay unaware that your death is his goal, the more his
words can infect you like poison to delay your self-defense plan.
Global Warming briefings were being given to tobacco company
executives two decades ago, while they were in the midst of carrying
out serial murders of 400,000 Americans per year with delay tactics of
hired science-falsifiers. They loaned part of their propaganda
apparatus to the OILY INC liars to delay actions on Global Warming, as
the court records show as early as 1988.
It wasn't until 1998 that the evidence came to light in courts of law,
but nine years later the same people are still doing the same frauds.
Since 1988 to 1998, 4 million Americans were killed by frauds that
said that the science on tobacco was unsettled. These are willful
deliberate premeditated murders, using people like Peter Muehlbauer to
spread their message.
Since 1998 another 3.6 million have been murdered by falsified science
"debate" keeping the settled science from being taken seriously by
thew victims of opportunity whom have been knowingly addicted by
corporate serial murderers, and their henchmen like Peter Muehlbauer.
The A.S.S. Coalition (TASSC) & Global Warming
http://TobaccoDocuments.org Court Records
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html
Abstract
To circumvent its lack of credibility with the public, policy makers
and the media, Philip Morris (PM) uses the strategy of creating front
groups. Forming an artificial third party and then assigning it an
"umbrella cause" (one which happens to mesh perfectly with the tobacco
industry's) gives PM and the industry the opportunity to create a
wholly separate, and far more credible, mouthpiece advance its
policies and political desires. In PM's front group "Associates for
Research in Substance Enjoyment," (ARISE) "scientists" lumped tobacco
use together with innocuous substances like tea and chocolate, put out
worldwide press releases saying substance use was good for you and
declared public health advocates to be puritanical, neo-prohibitionist
party poopers. After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
declared secondhand smoke as a Class A Human Carcinogen, PM needed a
powerful group to rise up help discredit EPA's findings. Thus PM
formed "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," or TASSC.
Recognizing that the chemical, paper, metal, petroleum and other
environmentally-dubious industries would also be thrilled to have a
group of "committed experts" who would publicly say that scientific
warnings against their activities were not credible, PM invited these
industries to join TASSC. With the needs clear and a host of willing
help-mates waiting in the wings, PM created TASSC through a public
relations firm called APCO Associates, which helped PM distance itself
from the group. After a 2-month, $50,000 feasibility study done hand
in hand with PM's law firm of Covington and Burling, APCO began
forming TASSC. APCO did an admirable job of recruiting members for
TASSC, too. The "supporters list" (found in another document) includes
businesses from the "Family Loompya Seafood Market" and "Pinckneyville
Lighting" to sawmills, mining and chemical companies, including W.R.
Grace, Co., Amoco, and Dow Chemical. Today's document reveals the
goals of TASSC, and also APCO's enthusiasm for creating a similar
group in Europe based on its success in America and elsewhere. Title:
Thoughts on TASSC Europe Type of Document: Memo From: Tom Hockaday of
APCO Associates To: Matt Winokur, Director, Worldwide Regulatory
Affairs for Philip Morris Date: 19940324 Site: Philip Morris Tobacco
Company http://www.pmdocs.com/ Bates No. 2025492898/2905 Page Count: 8
URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=3D2025492898/2905
03/28/94 15:25 '8`202 466 6004 APCO ASSOCIATES 0004 -3 - As a starting
point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research
and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our
European colleagues suggest include: . Global warming =C2=B7 Nuclear waste
disposal =C2=B7 Diseases and pests in agricultural products for
transborder trade =C2=B7 Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC products
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html
Thoughts on Tassc Europe
Date: 25 Mar 1994
-3- As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound
scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them.
Some issues our European colleagues suggest include: . Global
warming . Nuclear waste disposal . Diseases and pests in agricultural
products for transborder trade . Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC
products . Food processing and packaging
-5- decisions. The supporters of the Appeal are a loose-knit group.
The effort to expand the support of the Appeal is handled through Dr.
M=2E Saloman of the International Center for Scientific Ecology (Paris).
In discussions with a number of our scientific supporters and with Dr.
Fred Singer (a member of the Board of the International Center for
Scientific Ecology), there is belief that this initial support could
be organized into a more "formal movement" internationally. The
benefits of attempting to use this group as a basis of extending TASSC
include: Several of TASSC's scientists have signed the Appeal,
providing the opportunity to approach the supporters with a "peer to
peer" approach, i.e. , a "Dear Colleague" letter.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI15842109.html
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1993 THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER A truth squad
for monitoring shaky science
Date: 28 Dec 1993
TASSC should work to make fiascos like the Alar scare as familiar to
students as rain forests or global warming.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/82000099.html
TASSC The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
"It is neither reasonable nor prudent for major political decisions to
be based on presumptions which, in the current state of knowledge, are
still only hypotheses, although they must certainly be examined and
even taken into account. The more or less apocalyptic scenarios evoked
in the preparatory, work for the Rio conference are not the kind of
certitudes which can be used as a basis for political decisions likely
to entail major upheavals and heavy expenditure on a global scale."
~Michael Salomon, Editorial Director, Projections Quarterly, Autumn-
Winter 1992
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028363773-3791.html
Scientists for Sound Public Policy Assessment Project and Symposium
Date: 1994 (est.)
Length: 19 pages
EXPLANATIONS =B7 The political decision-makers are vulnerable to
activists' emotional appeals and press campaigns =B7 The opinion climate
tends to favour overly simplified solutions The precautionary
principle is now the accepted guideline. Even if a hypothesis is not
100 per cent scientifically proven, action should be taken, e.g.
global warming Europe's industry is often on the defensive. Action is
typically taken when it is too late. And industrial resistence is
perceived as protection of commercial self-interests.
Burson-Marsteller
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025493202-3207.html
Date: 26 Apr 1994 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
Many industries trying to establish groups to "communicate science"
and "to lobby" EUFIC (food industry) SAGB (biotechnology) Heidelberg
Appeal (global warming)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024102283-2287.html
Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 5 pages
SEITZ SYMPOSIUM
*Late lst quarter/early 2nd quarter
*Procedural Options for Addressing the Scientific Issue Highlighted in
Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies, Dr. Frederick Seitz of
the George C. Marshall Institute
*40-60 regulators--Ensure credible science
*TASSC
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046451070-1139.html
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
Date: 11 Aug 1994
Length: 70 pages
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802450-2451.html
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D=2EC.
Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW: From global warming and ozone depletion to
biotechnology and food additives
Dr.. S. Fred Singer (Moderator) University of Virginia; president, The
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Dr. S. Fred Singer, president The Science & Environmental Policy
Project. 9:15
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Date: 09 Dec 1996
Length: 13 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/800298146-8158.html
Press Release of The Science & Environmental Policy Project "TOP FIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 'MYTHS' OF 1995 TO BE RELEASED BY SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT: List Challenges Costly Policies Not
Supported By Sound Scientific Data," January 10, 1996
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 1 page
2025802449
Jump To Images
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802449.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178213-8216.html
Philip Morris
Possible Individuals to Be Approached for Opinion Editorials
Date: 02 Mar 1993
Length: 4 pages
Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
She has published extensively on junk science issues in the past.
Crandall' was the Director of Communications for the Center for
Strategic and International' Studies before joining, SEPP. The primary
focus of SEPP is too document the use of scientific data in the
development of federal environmental policy. SEPP is an independent,
non-profi research group that relies on private funding.
It will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason University in May on
scientific integrity in the political process, Crandall has arranged
for a number of prominent scientists to be participants, including Dr.
Bernard Davis of Harvard University and1 Sir William Mitchell of'
Oxford University.
Crandall is Dr: Fred Singer's wife.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Issue Report Alexis Whither Environmental Regulation
Date: 01 Jul 1993
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s2/TI31741185.html
Dr. S. Fred Singer is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia and directs the Washington- based Science &
Environmental Policy Project. He is currently working on a study on
environmental regulation for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Anthology of 950000's Environmental Myths
Date: 11 Feb 1996
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2048280356-0358.html
Copyright 1996 News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times
February 11, 1996, Sunday, Final Edition SECTION: Part B; COMMENTARY;
Pg. B3 LENGTH: 1377 words HEADLINE: Anthology of 1995's environmental
myths BYLINE: S. Fred Singer
BODY: The primary mission of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project has been to study and analyze how science is used - or
missused - in the setting of federal environmental policies, and then
expose the most egregious examples of environmental malfeasance. There
are so many: Superfund, asbestos, Alar, acid rain, to mention just a
few - all of them costing mega-billions and backed by insubstantial
science. When we decided to list the greatest environmental myths of
1995, our board _ of experts finally settled on the following five
topics that demonstrate distortion or misuse of science in shaping
policies. We present them here to educate policy-makers and the public
in the hope that the publicity will lead to more cost-effective
policies and a healthier environment. (1) Global warming and the
Climate Treaty: During 1995, scare stories about a future catastrophic
greenhouse warming gained much momentum, while at the same time the
evidence for such warming became weaker and weaker. At the first
"Conference of the Parties" to the Global Climate Treaty in Berlin in
April, the science was ignored while the assembled "statesmen" went
ahead to establish a permanent secretariat and plan further mega-
meetings. In September, at the initiative of Al Gore, a Washington
conference promoted a new fear tied to global warming: a spread of
tropical diseases putting 3 billion people at risk. Finally, in
November (in Madrid) and December (in Rome), the U.N.-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific arm
of the Treaty, managed to approve two pre-drafted summary reports.
These can charitably be described as being "economical with the
truth."...
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Is the Concept of Linear Relationship Between Dose and Effect Still A
Valid Model for Assessing Risk Related to Low Doses of Carcinogens? A
Restricted International Scientific Seminar 930510 - Paris (France)
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 5 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385383-5387.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Is the concept of linear
relationship between dose and effoct still a valid model for assessing
risk related to low doses of ets? A restricted international
scienfific Seminar May 10, 1993 - Paris (France)
The seminar is organised by the International Centre for a Scientific
Ecology (see Introduction to the Centre in the appendix). The
scientific work is organised by Dr Michel Salomon, the coordinator of
the Heidelberg Appeal.
Prof. S. Fred Singer, Doctor of Physical Science; President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, US Weather
Satellite Program; Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences,
University of Miami; Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); American. nationality;
Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal; former
science journalist; magazine editor; French nationality.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Director the Science and Environmental Policy
Project
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178209.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Brown & Williamson
Public Affairs Strategies.
Date: 1900
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/1059809.html
(#8) SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT From a strategic
standpoint, we believed the most effective way to publicize the report
would be through a credibl]e highly respected "third party".
So we brought the report to the attention of the 'Science &
Environmental Policy Project", SEPP, as it is known, is a Fairfax,
Va., think-tank that studies and analyzes how science is used in
federal policy-making and encourages the use of sound science. After
reading the CRS report, SEPP was equally concerned the EPA's
conclusions and agreed more visibility was in or@er.
{#9) SEPP NEWS RELEASE With B&W's assistance, SEEP launched a media
relations campaign in January calling attention to the "Top Five
Environmental Myths of 1995." While such issues as "global warming"
and radon were on the list, the focus was on ETS.
(#10) WASHINGTON TIMES "OP ED" In addition to news releases, SEPP
wrote "Op ed" pieces and conducted interviews on radio and television.
SEPP is continuing the "environmental myths" campaign, extending
discussion of the subject to speeches by Dr. Fred Singer, SEPP's
executive director. It's one strategy to help balance the debate.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Mayo Clinic
Length: 37 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/85002238.html
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY The Center has been
created at the beginning of 1993 under the French law for nomprolit
organizations.
The Board of the Center includes in particular:
- Mr Pierre Joly. President of the Association Francaise pour la
Recherche Therapeutique : former President of the International
Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association ;
- Mr Constant Burg. honorary member of the State Council ; honorary
managing director of INSERM : President of the lnstitut Curie:
- Mr Gilbert Rutman. chief mining engineer: President of the Conseil
Natioflal des Ingenieurs et des Scientifiques de France:
- Prof. S. Fred Singer. Doctor of Physical Science : President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project : former Director US Weather
Satellite Program : Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences.
University of Miami : Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) :
- Mr Gary Nash. Secretary General of the International Council on
Metals and the Environment (ICME) : former Director General in the
Canada Department of Energy. Mines und Resources :
- Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal ; former
science journalist : magazine editor.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122118.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
the Delaney Clause - Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501171259-1262.html
The Delaney Clause-Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice Prof.
S=2E Fred Singer
S=2E Fred Singer Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Arlington, Virginia
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Junk Science at the Epa
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178206-8208.html
S=2E Fred Singer Visiting fellovv at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and President of the Washington. D C.-baed Science &
Environrnental Policy Project
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122122.html
Philip Morris
Sepp - Environmental Myths of 950000 - Smt Participant Broadcast
Details
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122119-2121.html
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 10 Jan 1996
Length: 3 pages
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Seminar of 930510 on the Linear Relationship
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028443741-3743.html
Opening speech by Chairman of the Seminar, Prof. Bruce N. Ames
(Biologist'4 Dir., Nat. Inst. of EnvironmentallHealth Sciences Center,
Berkeley, U.S.A.). 9/9.20 a.m. =C2=B7 How biofogically based modeis may
help extrapolating cancer risk to low doses.
=B7 The Delaney amendment and its consequences on the American
regufation. Prof. S. Fred Singer (Physicist, former Dir., US Weather
Satellite Program; President, Science & Environmental Policy Project,
U'.S.A.). 10.20/10.30 a.m.
Noon =B7 Case studies: Predictions and reality. - The Arsenic case.
Prof. Gerhard Stohrer (former chief, Dept!. of chemical risk, Research
Inst. Sloan-Kettering~ U.S.A.).
The DDT case. Dr. William Hazeltine (Ph.D., entomo!bgist, former
Manager of mosquito abatement in California, U.S:A.).
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Update 930419
Date: 19 Apr 1993
Length: 7 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025475593-5599.html
CONFERENCE/MEETING: Scientific Integrity in the Public Process
SPONSOR: International Institute of George Mason University and the
Science and Environmental Policy Project DATE: May 24-25, 1993
LOCATION: The Madison Hotel, Washington, DC TELEPHONE NUMBER:
703-993-8200
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
BATCo
[Note from Heather Cooke to Tom Fitzgerald regarding report issued by
The Science & Environmental Policy Project SEPP]
Date: 27 Feb 1996
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/700520244.html
BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED To: FACSIMILE MR TOM
FITZGERALD I From: HEATHER COOKE Company: Brown & Williamson Phone
01784 448045 'Tobacco Corp Number: Fax No: Fax No: 0"784 448654 Date:
27/02/96 Pages To Follow: 3 Comments: I am trying to get hold of a
report issued by The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
which relates to the attached press release. Do you have a copy that
you can fax to me or know where I might be able to get hold of a copy?
Many thanks Heather Cooke Administrator, Smoking Issues
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Toxic Policy at Dead End: the Case of Arsenic
Date: 10 May 1993 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502146148-6153.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Seminar on linear risk
assessment May 10, 1993 Toxic Policy at Dead End: The Case of Arsenic
Gerhard Strohrer Science and Environmental Policy Project 2101 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 1003 Arlington, Virginia 22201
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Philip Morris
Give Industry A Bigger Science Rol
Date: 19921229/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144040.html
Patrick J. Michaels is associate professor of environmental sciences
at the University Virginia and is affiliated with the Washington-based
Science & Environment Policy Project. The Science & Environmental
Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003, Arlington, VA 22201 .(703)
527-0130
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
