[ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history & journalistic credibility

[Susan Gawarecki]

If you dig a little deeper, Timothy Ball is writing on behalf of the 
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, whose mission seems to be to 
counter environmental advocates of all stripes.  For some reason, there 
is a branch of conservatism that strongly resists the scientific 
evidence for global warming.

 From the opposite pole (so to speak) at 
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html :
"Meanwhile, ExxonMobil continues to fund millions of dollars to groups 
working to confuse the public about the broad scientific consensus on 
the causes of and solutions to global warming. ExxonMobil has funded 
these 'climate skeptics' some $19 million since 1998."

And as reported in 
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Weather/Storm/IPCC_Report_Climate_Change_and_Political_Heat__2732.asp 
(and elsewhere, this is just where I could find it online): "One think 
tank with close ties to the Bush administration has offered scientists 
$10,000 to attack the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Committee on Climate 
Change] report. The American Enterprise Institute, the 
ExxonMobile-funded think tank ... has reportedly sent letters to 
scientists offering payment to those who undermine the report."

It seems to me you are seeing the concerted effort by a major purveyor 
of fossil fuels to counter the evidence of global warming.  Is it 
working?  If you now have doubts about global warming because of what 
you read in the popular press, I guess it is.  However, the real science 
should be the basis for public policy, so I hope you will dig a little 
deeper into the technical literature.

For a striking visual representation (the "observed physical phenomena" 
that you desire) of the current warming trend, I suggest the National 
Snow and Ice Data Center's Long-Term Change Photograph Pairs (collected 
and contributed by Bruce F. Molnia, U.S. Geological Survey) at  
http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/special_collection.html - "This 
special collection features 14 pairs of Alaskan photographs. Each 
photographic pair consists of a late-19th or early-20th century 
photograph and a 21st century photograph taken from the same location. 
The comparative photographs clearly show substantial changes in glacier 
position and size and document significant landscape evolution and 
vegetative succession."

We KNOW the climate is warming, and yes, there is some debate about the 
degree of human contribution to the process.  However the consequenses 
of continued warming are dire to coastal communities and to established 
agricultural regions (and consequently to the the US' and other nation's 
economies), so it makes sense to decrease emissions of the potentially 
most harmful greenhouse gases, including by substituting nuclear power 
for burning fossil fuels.

Susan Gawarecki

Gary Damschen wrote:

>If the science behind anthropomorphic contributions to Global Warming is so
>settled, then could someone explain what seems to be a growing number of
>articles similar to this one?
>
>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>
> 
>