🚀 go-pugleaf

Len Evens wrote:

>From what I've read, I think the general consensus among 
>climatologists is that significant climate change in the 
>next century (if) present trends in greenhouse gas emissions 
>continue) is a real possibility.  But there is significant 
>difference of opinion about whether or not such change has 
>been definitively observed.   On the first point, I think
>those who believe climate change is rather unlikely
>are very much in the minority.  On the theoretical side,
>there is Richard Lindzen, and on the  observational side there
>is Balling.   There don't seem to be a whole lot more.
              
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^   

Mr. Evens choses to repeat the typical falsehoods of 
environmental fearmongers, and of course he has no citations.  
His claims are cleverly deceitful, as anyone who looks at the 
record can easily find out:


From Access to Energy, April, 1992, by Petr Beckmann:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

GREENHOAX: WHERE DO SCIENTISTS STAND?

Showing off media monkeys like Stephen Schneider of the National Center 
of Atmospheric Research, the mass media make you think that global 
warming is accepted by the entire scientific community, and that only 
illiterate mavericks could possibly contradict it. That is not what a 
Gallup poll found. Sampling climatologists, meteorologists and 
geophysicists, it found that less than 19% believe that warming of the 
atmosphere is induced by humans; 90% regard global warming as an 
emerging rather than a mature science, and 70% rate media performance 
fair to poor. More important, on 2/27/92 the Science and Environmental 
Project (1015 18 th St. NW/#300, Wash., DC 20003) released a strongly 
worded statement by renowned atmospheric scientists, which I have here 
lightly condensed:

"As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, 
we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference 
on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental 
activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth 
Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to 
impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous 
taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other 
industrialized nations."

"Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. 
They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global 
warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate 
action. We do not agree." 

"The majority of scientific participants in a survey (summer 1991) 
agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future 
warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing 
climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical 
models."
 
"Agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide 
levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops 
and on world food supply."

"We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic 
growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice 
of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to 
impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world 
economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most 
severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor."

You will not get a list of the signatories from the media, who imply 
that only uneducated cranks reject the greenhoax. So here is a listing 
of the signatories, which you will be hard pressed to get elsewhere: 

 ...(Names and affliations of 43 prominenint atmospheric scientists who 
signed this declaration deleted to save bandwidth.  Names available upon 
request)...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Schneider, proponent of global warming and ozone depletion,
at a 1989 Smithsonian conference on environmentalism: "We need to
get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. That, 
of course, means getting loads of media coverage.  So we have to 
offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements 
and little mention of any doubts one might have... Each of us has to decide 
what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------