[Chongo]

No one else saw this? 31,000 scientist renounce MMCC. Thye claim they have no funding from "energy related sources"

[url=http://www.petitionproject.org/]Global Warming Petition Project[/url
Global Warming Petition Project

Global Warming Petition Project

4. Who pays for the Petition Project?

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is a total fraud. They're the Discovery Institute of the climate change issue. They released this exact same document 7 years ago, even with the same number of "signatories." Here are some responses to it from that time (from wikipedia):

The Petition Project itself used to state:
“ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[2] ”
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15]
”
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ”
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17]

This "petition" is a complete joke, at least coming from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

[Chongo]

Ah, I see, then they are like the Center for Science in the Public Interest?

[Uncle Skeleton]

How? Is the CSPI dishonest? This being the first time I've heard of them, they seem similar in the respect that "science" in the title has little if anything to do with actual science, is that what you mean?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How? Is the CSPI dishonest? This being the first time I've heard of them, they seem similar in the respect that "science" in the title has little if anything to do with actual science, is that what you mean?

They're the "Food Police." They're the reason popcorn sucks at the movie theater now. If they get their way, we'll all be eating tofu and water cress.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
The Center for Science in the Public Interest: Not Scientific and Not in the Public Interest
CSPI scam | Why the Center For Science in the Public Interest is NOT in the public interest
Center for Science in the Public Interest

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They're the "Food Police." They're the reason popcorn sucks at the movie theater now. If they get their way, we'll all be eating tofu and water cress.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
The Center for Science in the Public Interest: Not Scientific and Not in the Public Interest
CSPI scam | Why the Center For Science in the Public Interest is NOT in the public interest
Center for Science in the Public Interest

I haven't been to a movie theater in almost 2 years. What did they do to popcorn?

[peeb]

They make it from tofu and watercress, apparently. The food police make them do it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I haven't been to a movie theater in almost 2 years. What did they do to popcorn?

They used to make the popcorn with coconut oil. The CSPI issued a report on the the eevils of coconut oil popped popcorn. Now the theaters are using canola. They ruined one of the things that made going to the movies special.
Popcorn: Oil in A Day's Work

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well I guess you're right, the CSPI is on the same level of the Oregon Institute then.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They used to make the popcorn with coconut oil. The CSPI issued a report on the the eevils of coconut oil popped popcorn. Now the theaters are using canola. They ruined one of the things that made going to the movies special.
Popcorn: Oil in A Day's Work

It doesn't seem like they did anything except publish a factually correct report about how much saturated fat was in it. Capitalism and consumer choice seems to have done the rest.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It doesn't seem like they did anything except publish a factually correct report about how much saturated fat was in it. Capitalism and consumer choice seems to have done the rest.

If you diet consisted of nothing but movie theater popcorn. Anything is bad if you eat too much of it, even tofu and water cress. "Supersize Me" proved that. One tub of theater popcorn once in awhile is not going to affect your triglycerides to the point it is in the unhealthy range.
The consumers had no choice. The theater owners bowed to the media campaign and pulled coconut oil, to my knowledge, without even asking their costumers. I would have offered both, and whatever sold more, stayed.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If you diet consisted of nothing but movie theater popcorn. Anything is bad if you eat too much of it, even tofu and water cress. "Supersize Me" proved that. One tub of theater popcorn once in awhile is not going to affect your triglycerides to the point it is in the unhealthy range.
The consumers had no choice. The theater owners bowed to the media campaign and pulled coconut oil, to my knowledge, without even asking their costumers. I would have offered both, and whatever sold more, stayed.

So you are saying that there is a vast, profitable market for popcorn made with coconut oil, and that theaters are refusing to serve this market based solely on a report published by a group of scientists? Come on.

[Chongo]

Yep.

[peeb]

Then I laugh derisively in your general direction. You underestimate capitalism - cigarette companies still produce cigarettes despite many, many reports by scientists, alcohol companies still brew and distill long after we know it is bad for people, and people still live sedentary lives with high fat diets even though scientists tell them it is killing them.

You claim that the popcorn industry is the only one where science has had an impact? Come on - this is a new low, even for you. If these industries can prosper in the fact of withering critique by scientists, it's preposterous to claim that popcorn was killed by one report.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Then I laugh derisively in your general direction. You underestimate capitalism - cigarette companies still produce cigarettes despite many, many reports by scientists, alcohol companies still brew and distill long after we know it is bad for people, and people still live sedentary lives with high fat diets even though scientists tell them it is killing them.

You claim that the popcorn industry is the only one where science has had an impact? Come on - this is a new low, even for you. If these industries can prosper in the fact of withering critique by scientists, it's preposterous to claim that popcorn was killed by one report.

Movie theater popcorn. and coverage on every network news show. Just like one movie killed the super size meal at Micky D's.

Anyway, to get back on topic, all of CSPI reports are based on flawed science, on what might happen if you continue eat this or that. Sound familiar?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Movie theater popcorn. and coverage on every network news show.

I love that you totally sidestep the sucking chest wound in your argument. If one report killed this delicacy, why is popcorn the only victim? Why do the tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug industries thrive despite withering critique from scientists? You don't want to answer this because you can't. If there was a market for unhealthy popcorn theaters would sell it, just like tobacconists continue to sell unhealthy cigarettes.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Anyway, to get back on topic, all of CSPI reports are based on flawed science

Now there's a claim we can test. Show me the flaws in their science. Let's have specifics, not a link to a right wing rant.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sound familiar?

What sounds familiar is the low drone of constant nonsense we hear from you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If talking about popcorn won't get this thread finally locked, what would? Boobies?

[TheWOAT]

How about...

Hitler was an enviromentalist in his day. Coincidence?

That should help.