[asa] Another CO2 article in PNAS format (by some of the same authors) (was Re: [asa] 31,000 scientists against global warming.)

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Fri Dec 04 2009 - 16:50:52 EST

Hi Rich,

I did a bit of digging on the below;
> In addition to the petition,
> the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific
> paper. Authored by Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon,
> (Do these names sound familiar? Hmm? BTW, the Marshall Institute member
> who stated that CFCs didn't cause the ozone hole in her 1995
> Congressional testimony was, you guessed it, Sallie Baliunus.) and
> Zachary W. Robinson. The paper was titled "Environmental Effects of
> Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same
> typeface and format of the official Proceedings of the National Academy
> of Sciences (PNAS).

<snip>

> STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
> OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
> REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION
>
>
> April 20, 1998
>
>
>
> The Council of the National Academy of Sciences
> <http://www2.nas.edu/nas/> (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused
> by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of
> this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto
> treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework
> Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend
> rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed
> with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a
> format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published
> in the /Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences/
> <http://www.pnas.org/>. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that
> this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences
> and that the manuscript was not published in the /Proceedings of the
> National Academy of Sciences/ or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

And a couple of interesting points emerge...

The paper in question seems to have been published in Climate Research 13 (1999) - in a format markedly different from that of PNAS <http://tinyurl.com/yarmuzm>

So why it should ever have been circulated in any other format is not remarkable. That this other format should just happen to be nearly identical to that of PNAS might be a remarkable co-incidence.

But wait! The plot thickens!

A very similar paper, by some of the same authors and under the same title, was published in (of all places) the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007. The piece, in it's published format, can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/ycfs2v9

This article TOO circulated in an alternate format - again, not in itself a remarkable fact except that this format just happened to be identical to that of (you guessed it!) PNAS <http://tinyurl.com/2js9rz>

Blessings,
Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 4 16:51:42 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 04 2009 - 16:51:42 EST