Re: LNT & Global Warming

[Gary Isenhower <garyi@BCM.TMC.EDU>]

I refuse to take a position one way or another without seriously

studying the scientific evidence.  Thats what we want the public to do

regarding radiation, isn't it?  The implication of the bridge cliche is

that one must be a fool to disbelieve global warming.  Such statements

are not very scientific.



xrftom wrote:

> 

> I followed the link and found this statement

> 

> "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of

> carbon dioxide, methane, or       other greenhouse gasses is causing

> or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic

> heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's

> climate. Moreover, there is

> substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon

> dioxide produce many

> beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of

> the Earth. "

> 

>     If anyone reading this, who does not have a vested interest in

> hydrocarbon thinks it is true, there is a bridge in Brooklyn NY I

> would like to sell you.

> 

> Tom Hazlett

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Jerry Cohen wrote:

> 

> > 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.

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: Chuck Cooper

> > To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:00 PM

> > Subject: [Fwd: [OEM] Re: UN Panel Predicts Global Warming]

> >

> > I'm forwarding this not because it is related to power generation

> > issues but

> > because it is related to scientific credibility, which has been

> > under some

> > scrutiny lately.

> > Bernard Miller wrote:

> > Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote:

> > At this moment, there is a petition going around against the

> > questionable

> > science behind the UN/IPCC predictions. See:

> > http://www.oism.org/pproject/  That web site contains a lot of

> > interesting

> > information.

> > That petition is already signed by over 17,000 scientists. Signers

> > of this

> > petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists,

> > climatologists,

> > meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.

> > The OISM Petition to which Mr. Engelbeen refers is one of many

> > petitions

> > produced by or at the request of petroleum producers, the chlorine

> > industry

> > (for which Mr. Engelbeen speaks) and their various PR and trade

> > organisations

> >

> > *************

> > **********************************************************

> > 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.



-- 

    _______________________________________________



	Gary Isenhower

	713-798-8353

	garyi@bcm.tmc.edu

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

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.