🚀 go-pugleaf

--
Richard W. Bates
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
Scott Nudds wrote in message <6agdac$5jt@james.hwcn.org>...
>
>Scott Nudds quotes:
>: >"The idea of man-made climate change used to be a minority view. Now
>: >new research into the history of climate science traces the story of
>: >how the minority won over the majority." - Ehsan Masood - Nature
>: >Magazine Science Update 1997
>
>Andrew Russell <arussell@BIX.com> wrote:
>: You cite ONE individual.  One is not a 'majority', although people with
the
>: ethics of Albert Gore like to pretend that it is.
>
>  I cite the journal Nature that disagrees with your dishonest claim
>that the consensus view is not supportive of global warming.
>
Let's put this "consensus" nonsense to reset once and for all .... to wit:

4,000+ scientists (70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners) have signed the
so-called Heidelberg Appeal, which warns the industrialized world that no
compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions.

(I'll see your 2600 scientists and raise you 1400)

Of all the academic specialists, climatologists (only about 60 of whom hold
Ph.d.�s in the entire U.S.) and atmospheric physicists are those most
qualified to examine evidence of climate change. It is those professions
that are most heavily populated by the so-called "skeptics.

A recent joint statement signed by 2,600 scientists under the auspices of
the environmental group Ozone Action is less than compelling. A survey of
those signatories by Citizens for a Sound Economy concludes that fewer than
10% of them had any expertise at all in any scientific discipline related to
climate science.

(let me point out ... "fewer than 10% of them had ANY expertise at all in
ANY scientific discipline RELATED to climate science"...  and that isn't
pertinent?)

See http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html for the complete article.

>  Here are some other references...
>
>
>Climate Observations Substantiate Global Warming Models
>-------------------------------------------------------
>- Bette Hileman, C&EN Washington - Nov 27, 95
>
>This consensus, and the evidence that supports it, are documented in the
>United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest
>report on the science of global warming. The 2,000-plus page report,
>written by about 500 scientists and reviewed by about 500 other experts,
>will be released next month.
>
>
>Consensus reached on Climate change causes
>------------------------------------------
>- R. Monastersky - Science News Vol 146 -
>
>While the politics of global warming inspire division and argument among
>nations, the world's scientists have reached a consensus on what causes
>climate change. Hundreds of top researchers from more than 80 countries
>agreed last week that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants
>represent the most important forces currently altering the climate,
>drowning out other effects that can cool the globe.
>
>
>IPCC SECOND ASSESSMENT SYNTHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC-TECHNICAL INFORMATION
>RELEVANT TO INTERPRETING ARTICLE 2 OF THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON
>CLIMATE CHANGE 1995
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>This report assesses a large part of the existing literature on the
>socioeconomics of climate change and identifies areas in which a
>consensus has emerged on key issues and areas where differences exist.
>
>
>Climate change: some basics
>---------------------------
>"There is broad consensus among climatologists that at least some
>surface warming will occur, but it is uncertain by how much and how
>swiftly earth's surface will warm." - Jan Schloerer
>
>
>
>  "But overlying the uncertainty is a broad scientific consensus on the
>fundamentals of the warming forecast. Global warming is real, a large
>majority of scientists agree." (The Washington Post, 1997.)
>
>
>
>Andrew Russell <arussell@BIX.com> wrote:
>:  Try your ONE individual
>: against the following 27 names of the initial signers of the 1992
>: "Statement of Atmospheric Scientists", which said in part:
>
>  The same set of names that we see cropping up over and over and over
>again.
>
>: S. Fred Singer
>: Sherwood B. Idso
>: Richard Lindzen
>: Robert C. Balling
>: Patrick Michaels
>
>  Lindzen, Schnider and other one time skeptics are now on record as
>predicting additional CO2 induced warming.
>
>  Singer is an oil industry shill, and Idso appears mentally unstable.
>
>"It is interesting to watch the proponents of of the ozone-CFC theory
>squirm when under scientific attack.  They resort to evasion,
>double-talk, and often outright prevarication." - Dr S. Fred Singer -
>Washington Times, December 28, 1994.
>
>  Shills say the dardest things....
>
>--
><---->
>