Edward McKelvey

This is not a response to anythting but instead a question.  How is it that the home page shows 122 coming to the reunion out of 135 answering the survey when the list of attendees shows 138 coming?  16 phantoms?

Paul Safyan

Ed:  You economists are so quantitative!

I can't answer definitively because I have not looked at the "count" at all.  I've just been adding the respondents to the list.

I have a list of those who have answered that they are not coming.  I have only recorded 13 such people.

My guess is that the discrepancy is from the fact that some people either were not able to answer the survey and told me that they were coming, or that I knew that they were coming, somehow, and I added their names.

Should this not provide a satisfactory answer, I hope that you will research this thoroughly and report back. :-).  Thanks.

Have you counted 138 in the table on the home page?  

Edward McKelvey

Ok, so the list doesn’t come directly from the survey.  Good enough for me. 

Donald Salisbury

I have been unable to find information on the class of 1968 webpage about reserving accommodations for the reunion. I see only that the reunion headquarters is Kahn Hall. Do we need to reserve a room there? If so, how?

Susan Gardner

The information for reunion registering will be sent out in March, I believe.

Susan Gardner

Paul Safyan

Yes, everyone, the latest projection is that this registration material will be sent in mid- to late- March.

An email about the pre-reunion ( a couple days in Cleveland for our class only) will be out very soon.

Steven Katz

William Harman

Folks,

I am not sure this message belongs here, but would welcome guidance on where to repost it. I plan to be driving to the reunion from Pittsburgh. Anyone who would like to hitch a ride (probable maximum of 2 to 3) would be welcome to come with me as well as to return to Pittsburgh. Contact me at 423-667-9360 or at  wharman@bellsouth.net.

Bill Harman

Jeff Schumer

Paul Safyan

Thanks, Jeff.  Yes, very nice pub.

Tom Thomas ('69)

Hello, this is November 2021.

Paul Safyan

Tom:

Can you see this?

Andrew Eskind

Thanks for the article in Oberlin Review discussing the management transparency and social responsibilty of the endowment.   The additional question I wish to pose is what policy, if any, does the endowment take regarding BDS (boycott, divest, sanction)?

Dick Hobby

I just got the email saying that a group of Oberlin students, faculty, and alumni are proposing that Oberlin divest of all fossil fuel companies.

I believe this is a big mistake.

Despite all the propaganda that CO2 is a danger to the planet, the scientific facts say otherwise.  CO2 is a harmless trace gas that helps plants grow.  We need more of it not less.

Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, who spoke at Oberlin about this some years ago, and thousands of top scientists around the globe all agree that so-called greenhouse gases are not a problem.

We should promote the use of coal, oil, and gas---especially coal as it is plentiful and can be burned cleanly.

The global warming side uses computer models that have never been right.  Garbage in garbage out.

I would encourage everyone to do what you can to defeat this divestment proposal.

Dick Hobby

Daniel Miller

Mr. Hobby is an example of "a little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring."  

CO2 is not harmless.  Plants have adapted to the levels that used to be prevalent and are not able to adapt quickly enough to the rising temperatures caused by rising levels of CO2.  Instead we are already seeing the consequences of reduced crop production brought about by increased summertime temperatures.  In order to avoid dehydration from high temperature, the leaf stomata shut down when temperatures pass their limit which means that CO2 is not being processed during the hottest part of the day and plants are not growing.

Thousands of scientists around the world most assuredly do NOT agree that increased CO2 is beneficial.  On the contrary they are tearing their hair out because disasters related to increased global warming are occurring more rapidly than was thought possible and people are not doing anything to cut down of GHG being spewed into the atmosphere.  The only problem with the models has been that they are too conservative and have based their predictions on hope.  We are now seeing the consequences of that hope disappearing.

Shirley Smith (Kirsten)

I applaud and support the divestment proposal unequivocally.  Shirley Smith Kirsten

Robert Wolfe

I strongly support the proposal to divest from fossil fuel industries. In general, investments in fossil fuel industries are poor choices for both financial and societal reasons. 

Based on costs, the energy sector and the financial markets have made a clear decision that renewable sources of energy are where the profits are. Most planning for new energy plants is based on renewable energy sources including photovoltaic and wind sources with storage systems. The cost trends suggest that renewable energy sources will become even less expensive as technology advances. The costs of fossil fuels are volatile and fossil fuel industries currently receive massive subsidies so that they do not have to pay for many of the toxic clean-up, climate disasters, or health problems that they cause. Once those subsidies are removed, the fossil fuel industries could prove to be massive liabilities, rather than assets worthy of investment. It is likely that there is still profit to be made from fossil fuel sources in the short term, as they are retired, but uncertainty and potential liabilites make them a poor investment choice for financial stability.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a proven fact. There are no scientists who dispute the effect. The complexity of biological and weather feedback systems makes it difficult to predict exactly what will happen under various scenarios of increasing CO2, but the fact-based models that have been developed to date have provided very useful predictions. The predictions of more frequent and more severe heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and droughts; rising ocean levels; disruptions to agriculture; and loss of plant and animal habitats have all proven to be painfully correct. So far, the adverse costs and impact of these outcomes have been worse than what has been predicted by many of the models, but the models continue to improve as more scientific facts and more accurate data are incorporated in them.

Ralph Shapira

Good posts, Daniel Miller and Robert Wolfe

Paul Safyan

Those of you who are speaking in favor of divestment should consider using the link to sign your name to the letter.  I appreicate those with contrary views reading through the proposed letter.

Dick Hobby

 Nothing that Daniel Miller says is correct---including his opening sentence, which is not only false but insulting.  He knows nothing about me and if he did he would know that i have studied this subject in depth for over 35 yeard and have read and talked to scientists on BOTH sides, which Daniel Miller clearly has not.

How sad that so many people read only the global warming propaganda, believe it, and then refuse to read anything that threatens their beliefs.

I stand by my statement that thousands of scientists worldwide know that CO2 is not a problem.  

Daniel Miller could start with Richard Lindzen at MIT and proceed from there.  

Dick Hobby

Dick Hobby

Robert Wolfe says "The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a proven fact. There are no scientists who dispute the effect."

Neither statement is true.  CO2 has a tiny effect on climate and temperature---so small that it is statistically insignificant.

And none of the disasters he lists are actually happening.

Robert Wolfe should read the top scientists on this such as Richard Lindzen at MIT.

Dick Hobby

Robert Baker

I completely support divestment of fossil fuel stocks by Oberlin; having divested such stocks from my personal portfolio. 

Richard Apling

Perhaps My. Hobby should check the science of these colleagues of Prof. Lindzen in MIT's program of Atmosphere, Oceans, and Climate: http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump

Rick Apling

Daniel Miller

Richard Lindzen hardly counts as one of the top scientists in the field of climate change.  If you want to check out real scientists doing research in climate change, then start with John Cook, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Keywan Riahi, Anthony Leiserowitz, Pierre Friedlingstein, Detlef van Vuuren, ...  

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/climate-change-scientists/

https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/

I especially like this one because it speaks directly to some of the fabrications the deniers have come up with: https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-climate-scientists-debunk-global-warming-myths-2021-3?r=MX&IR=T

If you want to see a denier get egg all over his face, look at Alex Epstein's article from 2015 and compare it with our present situation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=32a47df43f9f

And here is the latest, and realize that it was watered down by countries that don't want to get off the fossil fuel teat so reality is worse than it says: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452

If you want to follow current research: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/feed/atom/

As for your "35 years of in depth study," I can assure you that it was time and effort wasted.  You need to actually read the studies that have been done and understand the basis for their results.  From your statements, it is obvious that Mr. Pope's observations on learning apply in spades.

Dick Hobby

To Richard Apling:

    Yes I am fully aware that Dr. Lindzen's colleagues at MIT wrote that letter to Trump.  I read it when it came out as part of my practice of reading both sides diligently.

     But science is not decided by majority vote.  It is decided strictly by evidence.

     How many articles by Lindzen have you read, Mr. Apling?  How many articles by other top scientists who agree with Lindzen have you read?

      I have read hundreds of articles by scientists on both sides and having done that it is clear that those promoting human caused global warming are wrong.

Dick Hobby