Re: LNT & Global Warming

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

 Jim

    First, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful comments on my

assertion that,

like the LNT hypothesis, the rationale behind current concerns on global

warming are

unfounded. I don't doubt that in future ages there will be periods of

global

warming as well as cooling (ice ages) just as they have occured over the

history of the

planet.  The one certainty is that the climate will continue to change with

or without

the intevention of man.

    For facts and analysis to support my argument, I don't think I can do

better than

to recommend a review Fred Singer's book, "Hot Talk, Cold Science "

(Independant Institute, Oakland, CA, 1997). In it, he reviews the history of

the world's climate and the assesses the potential impact of increased CO2

levels,

ozone layer depletion, and other of man's activities. He concludes that we

currently

know so little about predictive climatology, that taking any precipitous

action based

on contempory pronoucements of doom would be  foolhardy at best.  I guess

that I

am one of that "small band" (17,000+) of scientists who share his views.

    IMHO, the proposed actions to prevent global warming effects are

analogous to the extensive policies and regulations adopted to prevent the

conjectured effects of low-level radiation. Look at what that has gotten us.

Billions of dollars have been squandered, and nobody seems to be  better

off,

except perhaps for the recipients of those funds.







> 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.

>



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

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.