|
Chris, There's nothing like a good analogy and the tobacco
industry is nothing like a good analogy. On the other hand, there are some 500 plus government
scientists who compose the IPCC along with some 300 academics who contribute. They hold meetings in many exotic and not so exotic
parts of the world at taxpayer expense - a perk that’s worth its weight
in vacations. Any academic who delivers a paper that supports anthropogenic
Global Warming will get an “in-house peer review” and a certain
notoriety if it contains a little horror. The media lap up disaster scenarios. Also perhaps a nice (all expenses paid) trip to The many scientists who dissent from the ‘known
truth’ must go through the journals of their particular discipline, or to
the publications “Science” and “Nature” – both of
which support the Global Warming hypothesis. At one time, I had intended to subscribe to Nature and
collected a bunch from a friend last time I was in I didn’t subscribe. I was a member of the AAAS for a couple of decades and
delivered a bunch of superior papers (my evaluation). The best part of
membership was the weekly issue of “Science”. I think Science is better than Nature, but its solid
support for Global Warming makes it suspect. There is a consensus on Global Warming. We know it
because the IPCC tells us there is. So, when a UCLA professor examined 1,000
papers by scientists and found that they almost entirely backed Global Warming,
Science published it. Climatologists know this isn’t true. It’s
like A So, he sent a letter to Science. Two or three weeks
went by and he received a note from Science saying his letter was too long for
publication. So, he shortened and re-sent it. More weeks, then a letter saying they could not
publish it because it had appeared on the Internet. (It wasn’t, says the writer.) So, Science refused to publish a letter from a
reputable scientist that directly refuted a paper they had earlier accepted. I’m glad I resigned from the AAAS. I use capitalized Global Warming to describe the
heavily politicized output from the IPCC factory. Of course there has been
global warming over the last 30 years, just as there was global cooling over
the previous 35 years or so. If you want to use ‘climate change’ go
ahead. Climate change has been occurring for the past 10,000 years, or
10,000,000 years. In fact from the beginning of things on earth. Chris, I’ve given you plenty of information to
attack. But, it’s not enough to simply say “No, it isn’t.”
Try to increase the substance of the argument, which means you should cut out
the non sequiturs, the clever little remarks, and the ad hominems. Just ad to the discussion. Harry ******************************** of 818 352-4141 ******************************** -----Original Message----- Remember how the tobacco industry obstructed for
decades the tide change in scientific "opinion" about smoking and
cancer? They simply paid a few "scientists" for insisting that smoking is
healthy, just so they could assert that "there is still no consensus"
that smoking is harmful. The same game happens now with "global
warming" (misleading and silly term btw -- climate change is the correct term). Can we ever learn from history in order not to repeat it? Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless
it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
