RE: LNT & Global Warming

["Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>]

Jerry Cohen wrote:

-----Original Message-----

From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET]

Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:25 AM

To: Chuck Cooper; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: LNT & Global Warming





It is unfortunate that the general public is largely technologically

illiterate and therefore

incapable of evaluating concepts on  scientific merit. Accordingly,

decisions are

not based upon a consideration of the scientific aspects of a subject, but

on the

degree of trust given to those who are either  for or against it. In this

regard,

I see a lot of similarity between the  global warming and LNT controversies.

In both cases  there is a lot riding  on whose view prevails, and public

acceptance

 largely depends upon which side is more politically adept in advancing

their case.

IMHO, the technical rationale behind global warming is as much nonsense as

is

that behind LNT. Both concepts have little if any scientific merit, are

driven by the

vested interests of their adherents, and are inimical to the best public

interests.



===============



Jerry,



With all due respect, I submit that you are the one being technologically

illiterate when it comes to global warming.  I would be interested in your basis

for your judgment that the concept has little, if any, scientific merit.



I would note that at least the possibility of anthropogenic global warming is

accepted by the UN IPCC review process, the recent NAS review of climate change

science, seventeen national societies (each the equivalent for their nation of

our National Academy of Sciences), and the editorial staffs of the world's two

premier general scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature.



On the other side is a small band (... we happy few ...) of scientists and

others expressing their sincere belief that global warming isn't happening or

that it is but we're not to blame or that it is and we're to blame, but we'll

like the consequences.  Some of these scientists are being funded by coal and

oil companies to do exactly what they're doing (these companies have even gone

so far as to establish pseudo-scientific journals as an outlet for dissenting

opinions).



Climate science is far from being a settled body of scientific theory and

empirical support.  The dissidents serve a valuable function when they raise

legitimate scientific issues.  When they obfuscate the observational records and

argue that climate modeling should be held to different, much stricter,

standards than modeling in other areas of science and engineering, they function

similarly to the "tobacco scientists" of several decades ago or to Peter

Duesberg, the HIV dissident.



Best regards.



Jim Dukelow

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Richland, WA

jim.dukelow@pnl.gov



These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my

management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.

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

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.