Re: LNT & Global Warming

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

OTOH, I was struck by a statement by a recent emeritus "climate scientist" a

couple of years ago who said something to the effect that, in his career and

involvement in the field, he figured there were about 400-600 "climte

scientists" in the world. Yet a couple of years after Clinton/Gore put $1

Billion/year into "research," there are 4,000 climate scientists claiming

that the world is going to hell  in a fullerene!  (Let's see: $1,000,000,000

/ 4,000 = $250,000 each - sounds about right, once the institutions take

their cut off the top!)



Regards, Jim

===========



> From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>

> Reply-To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>

> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:53:18 -0700

> To: "'Jerry Cohen'" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: RE: LNT & Global Warming

> 

> 

> 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.

> 



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

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.