Environmentalism: Religion vs. Necessity

[MJ]

Harvard Physicist Sides With Bush on 'Global Warming'

 

J. Zane Walley

Tuesday, July 3, 2001

 

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., senior staff physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center and contributing editor to the World Climate Report, has praised President Bush for continuing to reject rash measures such as the Kyoto Protocol ostensibly to combat global warming.

 

"The president is absolutely correct in his assessment that what we need to do on the issue of climate change is find answers based on science, rather than to found policy based on untested or failed assumptions," Baliunas stated in a Tech Central Station guest editorial June 11. "That is how – and the only way how - to treat the issue 'seriously.'"

 

She further said, "Proceeding in scientific ignorance, as many in Europe and some environmental organizations demand, to mitigation measures that would force a drastic cutback by advanced nations in their fossil fuel use will harm more than help the environment.

 

"Measures such as those required by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol would cause American economic havoc. As the president correctly noted, the technology is not in place either to cut dramatically or capture CO2 emissions without severely curtailing economic activity. Too, the cuts could reverse a greening effect observed in higher crop yields as a result of higher concentrations of CO2 in the air – which is beneficial to plant growth and human life."

 

In 1991, Discover magazine profiled Baliunas as one of America’s outstanding female scientists. Her acclaimed research includes solar variability and other factors in climate change.

 

Article made possible by the Paragon Foundation. Reprinted with permission.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../2/203349.shtml

[MJ]

SEPP News Release:

TV METEOROLOGISTS PUBLICLY ENDORSE ANTI-CLIMATE TREATY "LEIPZIG DECLARATION"

Backlash Results After White House Prods Weathercasters to Promote Fears of Global Warming "Catastrophe"

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Science & Environmental Policy Project

Contact: Candace Crandall

Tel: 703-503-5064

crandall@sepp.org

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, NOVEMBER 11, 1997---The Science & Environmental Policy Project reports a surge in requests for the Leipzig Declaration after television news meteorologists staged a press briefing in Cleveland, Ohio, 10 days ago to publicly add their signatures to the anti-Global Climate Treaty document. In a statement read at the October 30th press briefing, which was broadcast regionally and reported by the Associated Press, the meteorologists said, "we feel the need to bring to the public's attention the full spectrum of data that we work with on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis. Runaway global warming proponents predict cataclysmic consequences as a result of increased CO2. We disagree." [emphasis in original]

The Leipzig Declaration grew out of a scientific conference held in Leipzig, Germany, in November 1995, which critically examined the evidence for global warming. Authored by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, and now being circulated among climate experts, the Leipzig, Declaration has to date been endorsed by 110 climate scientists, including 21 meteorologists from the television news media. It reads, in part:

"There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results." It adds, "based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies likely to be endorsed by the Kyoto conference--lacking credible support from the underlying science--to be ill-advised and premature."

A group of Ohio TV meteorologists contacted The Science & Environmental Policy Project in early October, shortly after the Administration hosted an invited gathering of 100 television meteorologists at the White House and appealed to them to promote global warming to their broadcast audiences. At that gathering, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on October 2nd, White House global warming "experts" failed to answer the weathercasters' many pressing questions about the scientific evidence. Said Randy Jackson of WFMY-TV in Greensboro, North Carolina, "You hear them say "we think, we're not sure, maybe if..."; those aren't very conclusive terms." Brian Norcross of WFOR-TV in Miami, Florida, said he and some of his colleagues took a rather dim view of the event's political agenda. "The first question we had was, "What are we doing here?" he said.

Since the White House had broken ground by presenting its political agenda to the TV meteorologists, and since some weathercasters reported being pressured by their news directors to attend, the Ohio group felt a need to make an overt statement to avoid any public misperceptions about their scientific views. Those signing the Leipzig Declaration on October 30th in Cleveland were:

Mark Johnson, WEWS-TV (ABC) Ch. 5, Cleveland, Ohio

Jon Loufman, WKYC-TV (NBC) Ch. 3, Cleveland, Ohio

Dan Maly, WOIO-TV (Fox) Ch. 19, Cleveland, Ohio

Don Webster, WEWS-TV (ABC) Ch. 5, Cleveland, Ohio

A.J. Colby, WICU-TV (NBC) Ch. 12, Erie, Pennsylvania

Also: Prof. Vern Harnapp of the University of Akron

and Prof. Fred Starheim of Kent State University

Other TV meteorologists who have signed are:

Elliot Abrams, Sr. Vice President, Accu-Weather Inc.

Richard Apuzzo, WXIX-TV (Fox) Ch. 19, Terrace, Ohio

Andre Bernier, WJW-TV (Fox) Ch. 8, Cleveland, Ohio

Sally Bernier, WJW-TV (Fox) Ch. 8, Cleveland, Ohio

Bob Breck, WVUE-TV (ABC) Ch. 8, New Orleans, Louisiana

Neil Frank, Ph.D., KHOU-TV (CBS) Ch. 11, Houston, Texas, former director, National Hurricane Center, Miami

Dick Gantz, Weather Forecasting Inc.

Dick Goddard, WJW-TV (Fox) Ch. 8, Cleveland, Ohio

Shane Hollett, WJW-TV (Fox) Ch. 8, Cleveland, Ohio

Mark Koontz, WJW-TV (Fox), Ch. 8, Cleveland, Ohio

Roy Leep, WTVT-TV (CBS) Ch. 13, Tampa, Florida

James T. Moore, KSWO-TV (ABC) Ch. 7, Lawton, Oklahoma

Brad Sussman, WEWS-TV (ABC) Ch. 5, Cleveland, Ohio

Brian Sussman, KGO-TV (ABC) Ch. 7, San Francisco, California

Anthony Watts, HSL-TV (CBS) Ch. 12, Chico, California

Brian Westfall, Weather Forecasting Inc.

Note: Each person listed represents only him or herself. Affiliations are included for identification purposes only.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit education and policy research organization based in Fairfax, Virginia, was founded in 1992 to foster greater reliance on sound science in decisions affecting health and environment. Signed copies of the Leipzig Declaration continue to come in to the Project. For the full text of the Leipzig Declaration, with a complete list of signatories, and the text of the TV meteorologists' press briefing statement, contact Candace Crandall at (703) 503-5064. http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/meteorLD.html

 

 

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/...ming/index.html

[MJ]

LONG HOT YEAR

Latest Science Debunks

Global Warming Hysteria

by Patrick J. Michaels

Executive Summary

 

The national media have given tremendous play to the

claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists,

and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm tem-peratures

of this past summer were proof positive of the

arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In

fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a

strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which tempera-tures

continue to reflect a warming that largely took place

in the first half of this century.

Observed global warming remains far below the amount

predicted by computer models that served as the basis for

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming

of the second half of this century has mainly been confined

to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of

Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by

basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of

seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly.

There has been no change in precipitation variability. In

the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has

not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmos-phere

at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios

because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegeta-tion.

The second most important human greenhouse enhancer--

methane--is not likely to increase appreciably in the next

100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming

effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global

warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say

that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on

global climate.

____________________________________________________________

Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at

the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environ-mental

studies at the Cato Institute.

 

Introduction

Nearly 10 years ago I first testified on climate

change before the U.S. House of Representatives. At that

time I argued that forecasts of dramatic and disastrous

global warming were likely to be in error because of the

very modest climate changes that had been observed to

date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that the

more moderate climate change would occur overwhelmingly in

the winter and at night, rather than in summer, and that

it could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that

the likely warming, based on the observed data, would be

between 1.0 and 1.5 degree Celsius (1.8–2.7 degrees

Fahrenheit) as a result of doubling the natural carbon

dioxide greenhouse effect.

1

The most recent scientific findings published in the

refereed literature prove the validity of my testimony of

nearly a decade ago. Those studies document the follow-ing:

• Observed warming is only a fraction of the amount

predicted by the climate models that served as the

basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

2

• Observed warming is most pronounced in winter in

the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia

and northwestern North America.

3

• The variation, or unpredictability, of regional tem-peratures

has declined significantly on a global basis

while there has been no change in precipitation vari-ability.

4

• Drought in the United States has decreased while

flooding has not increased.

5

• Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a

rate below that of most UN scenarios, because it is

being increasingly captured by growing vegetation.

6

• The second most important human greenhouse enhanc-er--

methane--is not likely to increase appreciably in

the next 100 years.

7

• The direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was

overestimated.

8

• The Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention

on Climate Change will have no discernible impact on

Page 2

 

global climate within any reasonable policy time

frame.

9

In toto, those findings lead inescapably to the con-clusion

that the magnitude of the threat from global warm-ing

is greatly diminished. They should provoke a reexami-nation

of the need for the UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

 

The rest of the material can be found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa329a.pdf

[MJ]

A Diminished Kyoto Protocol

 

by M. Mihkel Mathiesen

 

Brief Bio

 

Dr. Mathiesen is an independent scientist and writer. His advanced degrees were obtained from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, including a Masters degree in Metallurgy in 1974 and a Doctorate in 1997 following studies at Kawasaki Steel in Chiba, Japan. Upon concluding his academic training, Dr. Mathiesen served as Science Attaché for the Swedish Embassy in Washington during the Carter administration. Thereafter, he became involved in the development of various energy and environmental technologies in Sweden, Japan, Singapore, Canada and the United States. Dr. Mathiesen is the author of the best-selling book "Warming in a Politically Correct Climate," which was published in December 2000 by Writers Club Press (ISBN 0-595-14066-1).

The Kyoto Protocol came close to unraveling completely in Bonn before the environmental ministers of Japan, Australia, Russia and Canada won substantial concessions eliminating two-thirds of the pledged reductions in energy use. The treaty survived in what is not so much a political victory as a last minute avoidance of complete failure. The CO2 emissions reduction to 5.2% below 1990 levels specified in the accord reached in Kyoto in 1997 was reduced to 1.8% in what amounted to an effort to salvage a climate pact – any climate pact – rather than a commitment to reduce emissions. Member states of the European Union, which desperately fought for the survival of the treaty and put enormous pressure on Japan to ratify the agreement, celebrated a hollow victory with much congratulating of each other, punctuated by snide remarks directed at the United States and the Bush administration.

President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in March as being ‘fatally flawed’ and may take credit – or assume responsibility – for the dramatically softened new agreement. At home he is now roundly criticized for isolating the United States from world affairs and diminishing the country’s role in the global arena. The dominating media appeared confused and embarrassed at first, as if the Administration had shown an appalling lack of tact in not joining the rest of the world in its environmental advocacy-induced concern for the future. For a fleeting moment when the treaty seemed doomed, MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who advised the President on the poor science behind the climate movement, was a budding hero. He quickly disappeared from view, however, when the diminished treaty was salvaged and the media promptly forgot the relevance of what he had advised the President to do.

Ratification became an issue of righteousness, brilliantly illustrating the removal of the issue from the realm of science, where it belongs, to that of advocacy, where it does not belong. Mixing politics and science to the point where neither makes sense forced the combatants on the side of ratification to resort to faith; and this faith was, and remains, vehemently defended, as is the case with anything that is not objectively understood.

The climate treaty began to fail for two obvious reasons: the reality of the immense expense of the effort was finally recognized, and recent scientific findings had shown the rationale of the treaty to have no basis in fact. It was embarrassingly obvious from the moment the Kyoto Protocol was hammered out, for example, that a reduction in the CO2 emissions of Western Europe, North America and Japan by about 1 billion tons annually by the year 2012 would have no beneficial effect on anything if the rest of the world, with the exception of Russia, were to continue adding some 8 billion tons of emissions to the air each year.

Worse yet, no proof, not even the slightest shred of evidence, supports the plausible-sounding notion that the warming since 1860 actually is a man-made phenomenon. Since news media by and large lack scientific expertise and, for reasons known only to those involved, always choose to side with environmentalists, the public has had no option but to believe what they are told. The sole ‘proof’ of man-made global warming, for example, is its prediction by the IPCC’s General Circulation Models, which by virtue of their design predict catastrophic future warming unless something far more drastic than the Kyoto Protocol is adopted. By definition, however, these models constitute nothing but the opinions of those who design and run them.

The IPCC claims that the models are ‘matched’ to temperature variations over the past 140 years. Be that as it may, the same models cannot be ‘matched’ to climate changes in the more distant past, indicating a serious flaw, that being that whatever caused warming trends in the past is not accounted for in the IPCC models of today. And if the same factors are at work now, the IPCC computers will be blissfully unaware of what these factors portend. At the other end of the spectrum, the models are ‘matched’ to opinions about the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, something which did not exist in the past.

When all else fails, greenhouse warming proponents resort to referring to an ‘overwhelming majority of scientists’ who believe in man-made warming, forgetting that attempts at majority rule in science amount to nothing but meaningless oratory and that only verifiable facts count. Sadly, a fair number of scientists do adhere to the man-made global warming belief since it has acquired politically correct status. Adherence often enhances careers in academia and is recommended when applying for research grants. Critics, astoundingly, are systematically marginalized.

In contrast to this sad state of affairs in what we could call the field of political climatology, it is refreshing to study the facts of the matter, most of which have come to light in the last few years, long after the political arm of science had decided that further facts might only confuse the issue. We now know, for example, that 71% of the warming from 1880 to 1993 was caused by fluctuations in solar irradiance. In fact, every temperature maximum and minimum over this period coincides with corresponding peaks and valleys in solar activity.

Despite the factual evidence of the sun’s dominating role, greenhouse followers hold the rapid accumulation of atmospheric CO2 since 1940 to be the cause of global warming. However, most of the past century’s increase in temperature was completed in the period before 1940, when CO2 emissions were much less substantial. Adding insult to injury, the rapidly accelerating CO2 emissions after World War II coincided with a 30-year-long cooling period, prompting environmentalists of three decades ago to warn of a coming ice age!

The absurdity of the events in Bonn is further underlined by the fact that the opinions expressed by the models indicate an emissions reduction of 60 to 80% is required to avoid disaster; yet we see the United Nations and the EU rejoicing at a mere 1.8% cut for the world’s industrialized nations – except the United States – while the rest of the world carries on expanding emissions. If emission limitations truly were crucially needed and the champions of Kyoto really believed in their cause, the agreement in Bonn would be described as an utter calamity. It is instead called a victory, indicating that bureaucratic prestige and jobs at the public’s expense have been saved, not to mention the credibility of involved advocacy groups.

There is no doubt the original Kyoto Protocol was flawed, as adherence to the treaty simply could not have made the slightest difference to global climate, even if the current warming were of anthropogenic origin. The present modified treaty thus represents a symbolic agreement to do something, while it is tacitly understood that what is actually done will be next to nothing.

 

Existing evidence of the perfectly natural cause of the past-century warming renders the modified climate treaty fatally flawed, as U.S. President Bush rightly noted. By not yielding to pressure but staying on a less-than-popular course of principle, the Administration arguably showed the courage of conviction rather than the insensitivity and lack of tact reputed to it. Other nations partly followed, to avoid economic losses of significant proportion in return for little or no benefits other than those of a purely political nature. Consequently, the original intentions of the Protocol are now seriously compromised, which should be excellent news for the economies of the nations of both the developed and developing world. Clearly, there are no benefits in avoiding risks that do not exist.

http://www.co2science.org/forum/2001/v4n32f1.htm

[MJ]

Here is another alternative site with some information that may not be found on the pages of LA or NY Times or may not be allowed to broadcast on CNBC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC or ABC:

http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#what

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
Here is another alternative site with some information that may not be found on the pages of LA or NY Times or may not be allowed to broadcast on CNBC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC or ABC:
http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#what

---

I do hope to be able to address these issues (in some detail) with you at some point (though i can make no promisses). I think I have some counters. I need to read your references first (and find mine) and this takes some time (that I don't have enough of at the moment or for the forseeable future). I should tell you that though while I am not an expert per se in these issues I am not without some knowledge/experience/exposure. I once worked for a Congressional commitee specifically conducting oversite of the EPA (and the States) regarding (identification & enforcement of) some of thes issues - so I am not entirely unaware - particularly in regard to where we are falling short (administratively) - though I am perhaps a bit dated by a decade+ or so. (ie all of these claims of reduced emmisions/atmospheric levels - while [for the most part] true - don't mean we are in the clear [literally] yet - far from it [and don't forget the comming impact of developing nations...particualrly China]). I could also tell you about cheaters and how corporations circumvent the laws (though I don't think I can tell you these things [legal reasons]..you will just have too imagine...) What I can say - with certainty - is that if it weren't for environmental groups pressuring the Government and if it weren't for the (Federal) government making and enforcing environmental laws - most corporations would be doing little to nothing to clean themselves up - sad but true fact - confirmed by environmental representatives of these corporations themselves (to me).

I know that this may not dirtectly address your point concerning the validity of the science and the impact on our economy etc - however it is all part of the puzzle. Sure environmental groups are like any special interest group - they go to the extreme for their particualr cause..however this is necessary - you ask for more then you ever excpect to get - just as the other sides fights tooth and nail to resist - even though they too know that such a position is wrong. As for the impacts of the effects of adopting laws enforcing strict emmision standards etc - these will actually benefit the econmy - IMO - I have seen it in other areas - it spurs technology and investment (to update technologies and methods - resulting in our industries being more competative) and creates a whole new industry (just ask Waste Management Incorporated or BFI etc) - and I argue - the US has a competative advantage with such industry/technology (as long as they keep on it and don't let it slip aaway to other nations - which is exactly what they are doing by not getting onto Kyoto (in some form)...IMO...and I still argue that the (very real & likely) potential harm to the earth far outweighs near term economic issues anyway...really now. I also think that it is important that we demand environmental standards for goods being imported into our country - another way to gain competative advantage (or at least not to lose market share due to more restrictive US laws)

PS - and please don't forget to ask Dragon for his assessment regarding how relevant this topic is to Armenians...

[MJ]

Thoth,

 

My point is not that there should not be Environmental Groups, and they should not exert pressure on the Governments and Industries. My point is that the sight of the common sense, the sound science, the honest representation of the issue, the integrity of the process should not be lost.

 

Additionally, I despise the introduction of ideological/political lines in an issue, which is supposed to be environmental and economical by its character.

 

I also despise the attitudes of those who would never spend minimal time or effort to get acquainted with the real issues, and would pound ideologically charged and venomous declarations, which frequently would be on the verge of absurdity (much like the Kyoto Protocol).

 

As far as your remark about Dragon is concerned, I have to confess that it is quite refreshing to see you criticize a “mortal member,” rather than a “divine moderator.” What a change of heart…

 

P.S. I look forward to your comments, and I hope your health problems would disappear in the nearest future.

[MJ]

THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

 

As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens -– are apprehensive about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the industrialized nations, -- but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years, with further cuts to follow. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the announced goal of the Climate Treaty -- would require that fuel use be cut by as much as 60 to 80 percent -- worldwide!

Energy is essential for economic growth. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. We understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the Kyoto Protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.

More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases, requiring immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record, which appears to be dominated by natural fluctuations, showing both warming and cooling. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies.

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that –- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs -– with warmer periods, such as the medieval "climate optimum," playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. Colder periods have caused crop failures, and led to famines, disease, and other documented human misery. We must, therefore, remain sensitive to any and all human activities that could affect future climate.

However, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature.

********************************************************************************

This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on Nov. 9-10, 1995, and in Bonn, Germany on Nov. 10-11, 1997. For further information, contact the Europaeische Akademie fuer Umweltfragen or The Science and Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Virginia.

http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html

 

SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION

 

The following is a partial list only. Following the Kyoto Conference on global warming, the original Declaration was slightly amended. The posting of 33 additional signatories is pending verification that the scientists still agree with the statement. The list will be updated as these verifications come in.

Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts

Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University

Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.

Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK

Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University

Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic

Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological Society; former chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.

Dr. C.J.F. Böttcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding member of The Club of Rome.

Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK

Larry H. Brace, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.

Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.

Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA, AMS.

Lee W. Eddington, meteorologist, Naval Air Warfare Center

Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.

Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK

Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany

Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research

Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado

Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.

Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.

Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

James D. Goodridge, climatologist, formerly with California Dept. of Water Resources.

Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.

Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.

Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.

Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.

Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio

Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.

Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal Atmospheric Research.

Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African Development.

Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma

Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin

Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member, Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.

Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado

Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992); reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.

Sir William Mitchell, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.

Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.

Laim Nagle, energy/engineering specialist, Cornfield University, UK

Robert A. Neff, former U.S. Air Force meteorologist: member, AMS, AAAS.

Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.

Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.

Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht

Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.

Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200 scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental forestry, and engineering technology.

Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent State University, Ohio; editor, Ohio Journal of Science, elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.

Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial development of the Climate Change Program of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and USAID.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone; author or editor of 16 books, including Global Climate Change (1989) and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (1997).

Dr. A. F. Smith, chemical engineer (ret.), Jacksonville, Florida

Dr. Fred J. Starheim, Professor, Kent State University

Dr. Chauncey Starr, President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute, winner 1992 National Medal of Engineering

Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100 research articles published in scientific journals; author of seven books; advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of Science, and the European Geophysical Society.

Dr. George Stroke, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Munich, Germany

Dr. Heinz Sundermann, University of Vienna, Austria

Dr. George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii

Dr. Arlen Super, meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lakewood, Colorado

Dr. Vladimir Svidersky, Professor, Sechenoc Institute, Moscow, Russia

Dr. M. Talwani, geophysicist, Rice University, Houston, Texas.

Dr. W. F. Tanner, Professor, Florida State University

Peter Arnold Toynbee, chemical engineer, F. Institute of Energy, London, England.

Dr. Christiaan Van Sumere, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium

Dr. Robin Vaugh, physicist, University of Dundee, UK

Dr. Robert C. Wentworth, geophysicist, Oakland, California, formerly with Lochheed Reseach Laboratory.

Dr. Robert C. Whitten, physicist, formerly with NASA.

Dr. Klaus Wyrtki, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

TELEVISION NEWS METEOROLOGISTS

(affiliation for identification purposes only)

Elliot Abrams, meteorologist, Senior Vice President, Accuweather, Inc.

Richard Apuzzo, meteorologist, WXIX-TV (FOX), Cincinnati, Ohio; member, AMS, NWA, SKYWARN; recipient of "Best Weathercast" awards from Associated Press and United Press International.

Andre Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio

Sallie Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio

Bob Breck, meteorologist, WVUE-TV (ABC), New Orleans, Louisiana

Matthew Bye, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California

A.J. Colby, meteorologist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania

Dr. Neil L. Frank, meteorologist, HOU-TV (CBS), Houston, Texas, former Director, National Hurricane Center.

Dick Gance, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Concord, Ohio

Dick Goddard, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio

Shane Hollett, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio

Mark Johnson, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio

Roy Leep, meteorologist, WTVT-TV (CBS), recently retired; Director, Gillette Weather Data Services, Tampa, Florida; elected Fellow, American Meteorological Society; former member, AMS Executive Council; among the group of TV meteorologists invited to the White House for a briefing on global warming.

Mark Koontz, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio

Jon Loufman, meteorologist, WKYC-TV (NBC), Cleveland, Ohio

Dan Maly, meteorologist, WOIO-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio

Ryan McPike, atmospheric scientist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania

James T. Moore, meteorologist, KSWO-TV (ABC) Lawton, Oklahoma

Scott R. Sabol, meteorologist, WBOY-TV (NBC), Clarksburg, West Virginia

Dr. Joseph Sobel, meteorologist, Pennsylvania Public Television Network; Senior Vice President, Accu-Weather, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania; co-author, Changing Weather: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change and Weather Extremes.

Brad Sussman, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio, AMS, NWA, Broadcast Seal Committee Chair NWA.

Brian Sussman, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California; member, American Meteorological Society (served on AMS Education Committee), 12-time recipient of the "Best Weathercast" award from the Radio and Television News Directors Association and Associated Press.

Anthony Watts, meteorologist, KHSL-TV (CBS), Chico, California

Don Webster, meteorologist, WEWS-TV 9 (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio

Brian Westfall, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Akron, Ohio

http://www.sepp.org/LDsigs.html

[MJ]

I wonder what has changed in the human behavior over the last one year…

_________________________________________________________________

 

Ozone hole over Antarctica has shrunk, split in two

Mon Sep 30, 3:47 PM ET

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - The ozone hole over Antarctica is markedly smaller this year than in the last few years and has split in two, government scientists reported Monday.

The so-called "hole," actually an area of thinner than normal ozone, was measured at 6 million square miles (15.6 million square kilometers) in September. That compares with around 9 million square miles (23.4 million square kilometers) on September measurements over the last six years, according to researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Agency.

 

While ozone at ground level is considered a pollutant, the layer of ozone high in the stratosphere is vital to life because it blocks dangerous radiation coming from the sun. Thinning of the ozone layer could lead to a rise in skin cancer, experts warn. Aerosols and other chemicals are blamed for the thinning, and treaties banning those ingredients are expected to help the layer recover over time.

This year's improvement was attributed to warmer than normal temperatures around the edge of the polar vortex, or circular wind pattern that forms annually in the stratosphere over Antarctica, according to Paul Newman, a lead ozone researcher at NASA ( news - web sites)'s Goddard Space Flight Center. .

Craig Long, a meteorologist at the NOAA Climate Prediction Center, said the stratosphere over the southern hemisphere was unusually disturbed this year by the wind, causing the hole to split into two separate holes.

 

In 2001 the Antarctic ozone hole reached a maximum size of more than 10.2 million square miles,(26.5 million kilometers) larger than the entire area of North America, including the United States, Canada and Mexico combined. In the year 2000, it briefly approached 11.5 million square miles(30 million square kilometers). The last time the ozone hole was as small as it is this year was in 1988, and that was also due to warm temperatures.

 

Newman explained that while "chlorine and bromine chemicals cause the ozone hole, the temperature is also a key factor in ozone loss."

 

The coldest temperatures over the South Pole occur in August and September. Thin clouds form in these cold conditions, and chemical reactions on the cloud particles help chlorine and bromine gases to rapidly destroy ozone. By early October, temperatures typically start to warm and the ozone layer starts to recover.

 

An Australian study published two weeks ago reported that chlorine-based chemical levels in the atmosphere are falling, and the hole in the ozone layer should close within 50 years. Although the ozone layer has not yet begun to repair itself, the hole would probably start closing within five years, said Paul Fraser, of the Australian government-funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, or CSIRO.

 

Ozone in the air overhead is measured in Dobson Units. The ozone hole is the area with total column ozone below 220 Dobson Units, as measured by satellites and balloon-borne ozone measuring instruments launched from the South Pole station.

 

In the tropics, ozone levels are typically between 250 and 300 Dobson Units year-round. In temperate regions, seasonal variations can produce large swings in ozone levels, reaching as high as 475 Dobson Units in some areas, and as low as 300.

 

A reading of 100 Dobson Units means that if all the ozone in the air above a point were brought down to sea-level pressure and cooled to freezing it would form a layer 1 centimeter thick. At that scale a reading of 250 Dobson Units translates to a layer about an inch thick.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ng_ozone_hole_1

[Twilight Bark]

It may be the higher temperatures due to global warming. Eskimos (a.k.a. Innuit, etc.) have been observing (and starting to make noises about) habitat destruction due to increased temperatures in the Arctic lately. Assuming the same phenomenon is occuring over the Antarctic, the shrinking of the ozone hole might perhaps be explained by the "human behavior" represented by global warming.

 

Disclaimer: This is only a speculation, and not a religious statement.

[MJ]

..But isn't it alleged that the implication of Global Warming is the Ozone Hole?

[THOTH]

MJ - actually no - the Ozone hole is due to use of CFC's - thwe byproduct of which break down the Ozone. CFCs are found in certain solvents (I believe/pretty sure), spray cans (not those used in the US anymore - don't know about elsewhere), and from substances (freon) used in refrigeration - again this is being phased out as well.

 

As with many environmetal concerns it is the much less regulated develping world where our emerging and future problems will be found.

 

I believe that you have much sympathy for the natural process/cycle of the earth as a greater force then anything mankind can mange...but I think this is shortsighted - it is obvious that mankind is capable of and is affecting this planet and its species (flora & fauna)...in a negative manner. And I don't believe that "global warmiong" is pesedo-science. I think the evidence before us is of dramtically rsing temperatures with the cause being man/industry/fossil fuel consumption....

[THOTH]

And perhaps Environmentalism is the right religion for our time. Our industrialisation - a new phenomenon on/for the planet has created a new reality - thus the necessity of environmentalism as a religion that encompases/takes into account this reality. And indeed - for those of us who do not believe in any type of otherworldly (non- or transformed corporal) otherlives - this planet (and its creatures etc) - (until we are able to move out further - etc) is all we have (and it & they depend on us - [to not f*ck it up while we have the power])- and thus is very worthy of religious reverence (and proper attention)...don't you think?

[Sip]

But I just can't stop asking my self ... how long are we planning to live? Why even bother? We are going to be wiped out sooner or later so why go through all the trouble and wait for later?

(Note that I don't expect an answer since there can be none except for speculation )

 

Now on a related note, I found it completely fascinating that this year, here in the Western parts of US, the effects of environmental-preservation efforts for many decades finally resulted in some of the most MASSIVE fires in recent times that wiped out HUGE chunks of Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and California. The devestation is just mind boggeling ... most of it (for example in Arizona) was due to the vegetation and growth levels being very high as a result of bans on logging, controlled brush fires, and other environmental restrictions.

 

We certainly have a lot of power. But I am with MJ on this (from one of the older posts) ... shut your mouth and don't claim to know what is good for the environment if you are not an expert in the field (this is directed to the typical, rather blind environmentalist types I have come in contact with in my life)!!! Everyone and their aunt seem to have an opinion on what is right when it comes to the environment. Just makes me SICK http://zr2.cs.ucla.edu/Sip/zr2/barf.gif

 

This "expert bashing" and "self-proclaimed expertitude" are very common in the US in specific. I have heard so many times people say things like: "Oh, what does he know blah blah blah..." when they encounter the opinions of an expert on a subject, especially if those opinions happen to contradict what they were thinking

[MJ]

Could you show me that evidence, Thoth?

[Boghos]

Over and over again we see apparently worthwhile causes embraced by well intentioned people even though often enough there is feeble credible evidence for a given view or theory.

 

I suggest a couple of interesting books on the theme:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...glance&n=507846

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...997528?v=glance

[Twilight Bark]

Below is an exerpt from an invited article by Bjorn Lomborg (the author of the book “ The Skeptical Environmentalist ”) , which appeared in The Economist.

 

The passage refers to a table in which the cost of saving a life by different "preventive measures" is documented; it ranges from 'Passing laws to make seat-belt use mandatory' at $69/life to 'Installing benzene emission control at rubber-tyre manufacturing plants' at $20,000,000,000/life.

 

The moral of the exerpt is that man-made global warming does exist, and is poised to have serious consequences, but it is simply too expensive to slow it down in a meaningful way. He may be right.

 

 

[ October 02, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Azat]

Here is a sample of small evidence.

 

------

 

The chairman of the committee for National Academy of Sciences that produced the report for Bush on global warming was Ralph Cicerone; he is an atmospheric scientist and chancellor of the University of California at Irvine.

 

Here is what he recently said on a report on NPR/PBS: We added our voice to the view that the observed warming, i.e., the fact that the planet is warming up and that it has been warming up for the past few decades, but with particularly rapid warming in the last 20 years, we agreed with the previous findings that the weight of the evidence, the weight of the scientific opinion is that most of that warming of the past 20 years is caused by human activities.

 

And when asked about the skeptics. People who noted that Earth is a very complex system and it's hard to tell what humans bring to the world ecosystem.

 

He said: Well, climate is wondrously complex and very tricky to research. I think the key here is that as the climate record, the real data, get longer, long periods of time, and the fact that this temperature increase of the past 20 years or so has persisted at such a high rate is convincing people that natural variability, which has always occurred, climate is always changing on the Earth, and it has done so over geologic history and even the past couple of centuries, but the rate of this increase and the size of it seems to be larger than natural variability can explain, at least everything we know so far about natural ability - natural variability. So we do have some caveats and some qualifications here, but the weight of the evidence is that this increase has broken beyond the size of natural variability.

 

------

 

Sip, I like to remind you that one of the main reasons why the fires destroyed so much was because we have not had much rain in the west for a while. It is true that humans/environmentalists are largely to blame for the fires(or the rage of the fires) however please do remember that the largest fires in US history were prior to any environmental efforts and when loggers were running at free range to do anything they wished.

[MJ]

TB,

 

I have two problems with your last paragraph.

 

I don't think the above mentioned excerpt attests to the existence of global warning. As far as I understand, such phenomenon has been alleged but no such evidence has been presented so far. However, one may tie it to Global Warming. The unit of measurement in that excerpt is unclear as well as how to interpret it and who has measured it.

 

Otherwise, I am for imposing emission controls on rubber-tier manufacturing plants - within the perimeters of common sense.

 

[ October 03, 2002, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[THOTH]

Azat - exactly. The observed increase in temperatures is greater then any known models can account for (with natural variance). The mechanisms/causation of this increase are before our eys - area ll around us - and with the rise of developing nations and greater populations will only get worse. And if (global warming is) true - the risk/consequences is/are so very much greater then the (negative?) impact of any efforts to stem such. (not saying that Kyoto or such was ideal or even recommended course of action.....but neither is ignorance). And even if not true - less polution is just better - I can't prove this but I know it to be true...

[THOTH]

Boghos - I am a sceptic by nature and I think that there are lots of folks who could benefit by the books you have suggested. (not that I don't also believe that some things are just beyond our ability to expl;ain/comprehen right now...)However I do not view the global warming hypothesis as being in the category of "Bad Science" - though perhaps/certainly there has been some on this subject. Overall I think the empiracle evidence as known/presented/etc is/should be enough to cause some alarm...at the very least...and generate (at least some) action before it might be too late...

[Twilight Bark]

It merely refers to the studies. For that you would need to read his book and hunt down the references.

 

The human-induced component of global warming had indeed been buried within the "noise" until recently (i.e. a case of "inconclusive evidence). However, in the past couple of years there is a growing consensus that we are indeed causing significant global warming. If The Economist, a champion of free-market thinking (and an excellent magazine overall), concedes that it exists but says it is too expensive to prevent, I think the discussion should move away from the hardliner "well, how do we know there is global warming" level to deciding what can and cannot be reasonably done about it.

 

I don't know what you are referring to, but to find out more details I am afraid you just have to read his book. (Disclaimer: I haven't bought the book; no time )

 

His argument was that it doesn't make sense to spend 20 billion dollars to save one life (in the sense that we can save a lot more lives by channeling the money elsewhere). I don't know your perimeters of common sense though. I also don't mean to suggest that your life is not worth 20 billion dollars.

[MJ]

 

Originally posted by MJ:

I don’t think the above mentioned excerpt attests to the existence of global warning.

 

It merely refers to the studies. For that you would need to read his book and hunt down the references.

 

Clearly there have been a lot of studies on the subject. For some people, these studies are their sole source of income… But …

 

 

As far as I understand, such phenomenon has been alleged but no such evidence has been presented so far.

 

The human-induced component of global warming had indeed been buried within the "noise" until recently (i.e. a case of "inconclusive evidence). However, in the past couple of years there is a growing consensus that we are indeed causing significant global warming. If The Economist, a champion of free-market thinking (and an excellent magazine overall), concedes that it exists but says it is too expensive to prevent, I think the discussion should move away from the hardliner "well, how do we know there is global warming" level to deciding what can and cannot be reasonably done about it.

 

But again, while I am aware of Global Warming, as far as I know, scientists are agreeing only on local warming over the last couple of decades. One of the questions that I have never been able to find an answer to, is which law of physics contemplates that the temperature of the earth has to stay constant. Clearly, historically it has not been constant.

 

I disagree with you on the subject of The Economist. In particular, don’t find it particularly free-market oriented.

 

 

The unit of measurement in that excerpt is unclear as well as how to interpret it and who has measured it.

 

I don't know what you are referring to, but to find out more details I am afraid you just have to read his book. (Disclaimer: I haven't bought the book; no time )

 

I don’t understand what the unit of measure $/life means. [Just noticed that your next paragraph explains it, however.]

 

 

Otherwise, I am for imposing emission controls on rubber-tier manufacturing plants – within the perimeters of common sense.

 

His argument was that it doesn't make sense to spend 20 billion dollars to save one life (in the sense that we can save a lot more lives by channeling the money elsewhere). I don't know your perimeters of common sense though. I also don't mean to suggest that your life is not worth 20 billion dollars.

 

Never mind. You can proceed with your own perimeters of common sense.

 

My life definitely is not worth 20 billion dollars (it is insured for much less ). However, I estimate my children’s lives to be worth more than that.

[MJ]

Why? Do you have another “discovery” from children are stupid series?

[Sip]

Just seemed like an uncharacteristically "biased" statement, that's all. I have come to expect fully logical, serious, very well thought-out things from you. Not saying that what you said about your childeren is or is not any of those ... you just surprised me that's all

 

Nothing wrong with feeling that way! Actually it's quite an admirable trait in a parent I must say. I just hope you don't expect others to share that same opinion