Anita;
My favorite website on this topic is www.realclimate.org
At 06:40 AM 10/24/2007, Anita Stone wrote:
>Dear Ecologgers,
>
> The posts on climate change/global warming have been very informative,
> particularly since I am just covering that in one of my courses. As I
> get to the portio
Paul,
If scientists were NOT interested in solutions, we would say the issue
needs more study. We would not be saying that global warming is occurring
and we need action. The funding is, in fact, shifting to applications. That
is as it should be.
Thanks,
KLM Decker
At 11:09 PM 10/22/2007, Bi
>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:59:37 -0700
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Kelly Decker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Kelly Decker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Heads up: The new Global Warming Denial Front
>
>Here is some results for you: I wrote my concerns to t
wo often go together. They are entitled to a
>voice, evn though we don't personally choose to listen.
>
>Bill Silvert
>
>----- Original Message - From: "Kelly Decker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:35 AM
>Subject: Hea
The George C. Marshall Institute, which has a long history of global
warming and nuclear weaponry science denial (specifically arguing in favor
of SDI or "Star Wars" against the consensus of physicists) has launched a
new PR campaign to suggest that scientists are biased in their findings of
gl
Ernie,
What a thoughtful response. I certainly don't want to restrict info, what I
do want is to leave no pseudoscientific claim left unrefuted. You may be
right about openness and GW, but as Naomi Oreskes says about global
warming: The scientific community needs to approach the issue with the
Bottom line: if we don't educate the public, somebody else will. Who do you
think that somebody is?
Scientists argue Evolutionary theory all the time in scientific journals.
Gould's theory vs Knoll's theory vs.
People find holes in some of the evidence (for the mechanisms of evolution,
not for evolution, itself) and discuss them in a scientific context.
It already happens. So play devil's
23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
>--
>
>"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
>
>"No trespassing
> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
>
>
I am tossed between being confused and being happy by the heat of this
discussion-heyat least it makes things interesting.
But I am confused by the blase' attitude of Dave. Dave, no one is saying
the world is coming to an end hereyou are confusing Jim with the
creationists on this point
Ho Boy. Here we go. This is a potential source of evidence for many school
board discussions on whether to teach creationism alongside science. (I
wonder why they consider astronomy an appropriate field for the journal?).
Jim! You are good to bring this up. We should all take a lesson from the
We could use Ludwigia. That grows really fast, whether we want it or not.
At 03:23 PM 4/27/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>"Actually, I think it is the Department of Energy that has recently taken the
>lead on switchgrass:
>
>http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html
>although the US
had on the ozone hole. It is a well-written piece of reporting, and he
>interviews other climatologists.
Cheers
Kelly Decker, Ph.D.
Ecosystem Science and Technology Branch/CSU Monterey Bay Coop
M/S 242-4
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94032
707-363-8272
Check out our model of a
e points.
>
>First, nonscientists generally do not want to
>bother with understanding the science. Claims of
>consensus relieve policy types, environmental
>advocates and politicians of any need to do so.
>Such claims also serve to intimidate the public
>and even scientists -- especi
14 matches
Mail list logo
