Re: LNT & Global Warming

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

Jim,

    As I suggested in a previous message, scientists are capable of judging

 the soundness of a scientific analysis itself, while the technologically

 illiterate must base their judgements on their trust of the scientists

making the argument.

    There may be good & bad scientists, but one thing they have in

common in that they have completed some education in one or more

of the sciences. MDs and DDSs (as opposed,for example, to lawyers

& journalists) have all been exposed to a lot of science in their education.

Science is basically a way of thinking based on data, logic and reason.

    With that background, and without discussion on the ancestry, pedigree,

or social proclivities of the opponents of the global warming hypothesis,

could you let us know what problems you have with Singer's analysis,

or with the technical arguments of the OISM ( <www.oism.org>).



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

From: Dukelow, James S Jr <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>

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

Cc: Dukelow, James S Jr <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:41 PM

Subject: RE: LNT & Global Warming





>

> Jerry Cohen wrote:

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

> From: Jerry Cohen

> To: Dukelow, James S Jr; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Sent: 7/17/01 5:56 PM

> Subject: Re: LNT & Global Warming

>

>  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,

>

> If you have read some of my rants in the past, you know that we agree on

LNT.

>

> It really is a small band.  A global warming mailing list I read has an

address

> list of 100-150 and includes most of the prominent dissidents.  By citing

the

> 17,000+, I assume you are referring to the Robinson's petition, at

> <www.oism.org>.  The list provided on the web site breaks the signers down

by

> state, but gives no indication of home town or professional affiliations.

The

> list for Washington state includes roughly 30 MDs, 10 DDSs, and a handful

of

> DVMs.  Those are the only signers whose areas of expertise are

discernible.  I

> was able to recognize a few of my colleagues here on the Hanford site, but

none

> of them has any particular expertise in the area of climate science.  Most

of

> them are grumpy old nuclear engineers, like me, or Chem E's.  None of the

> laboratory's 30 or so actual atmospheric scientists has signed the

petition.

>

> I don't consider Fred Singer a credible source of information about

climate,

> although the Wall Street Journal and the National Post certainly offer him

a

> bully pulpit.  You might notice that, like most of the climate dissident

> writing, Singer book is not published by one of the usual technical

publishers.

> I haven't checked, but I would be willing to bet that Independant [sic]

> Institute is a conservative activist publishing house, like Regnery,

publisher

> of The Hole in the Ozone Scare.  Singer has continued to peddle the

assertion

> that the MSU temperature record (i.e., the "satellites") shows the lower

> troposphere to be cooling (global average).  That was true until 1998, but

has

> not been true since.  More to the point, the MSU record shows astounding

> temperature increases for northern hemisphere high latitudes, on the order

of

> 0.25-0.30 deg C per decade (extrapolated, that would be 2.5 to 3.0 deg C

per

> century, right in line with the IPCC projections for the 21st Century.

>

> Climate, over the millenia, has certainly been highly variable.  What is

> striking about the last 30 years (and to a lesser extent, the last 120

years) is

> the pace of change.

>

> 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.