[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!
Hi John,
I am one of these 17,000 signatories of the OISM petition. I
am not a climatologist, I am just a scientist. Actually, I grew up
as a nuclear physicist who has now been dabbling in risk assessment
for 25 years. However, what I think that I have in common with the
other signatories of the petition is a certain amount of skepticism
for the loud and brash claims of climatologists whose huge computer
models do not fit what we already know by experience and that is how
El Nino and La Nina affect the winter weather in the U.S.
Some months ago, Jim Dukelow pointed out to me that the Global
Circulation Models now actually show currents such as the Southern
Oscillation that is associated with El Nino or La Nina. I read that
also elsewhere and find it encouraging. But I am still waiting for
the loud shout of "Eureka!" that would have announced that they now
can correlate the winter weather in the U.S. with the events in the
Southern Hemisphere. Right now, I am still willing to listen but I
am not holding my breath!
At this time, I am still skeptical about scientists who make
claims about effects such as man-made Global Warming which are minor
compared to other well established weather effects. Their models do
not cause the weather effects of El Nino and La Nina in the U.S. but
they claim to "see" man's influence emerging from their models! Now
let's get real here! And maybe let's also remember that the study of
"Man-made Global Warming" is a SEVERAL BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR industry
in the U.S. alone. This 8,000 pound Gorilla will react viciously and
run completely out of control if anybody such as Bjorn Lomborg dares
to question their conclusions. I read Lomborg's book and then I also
read the Gorilla's reaction in Scientific American. You don't have to
be a climatologist to understand what is going on: This is the Gorilla
at the Federal Feeding Trough reacting violently when disturbed!
As I said, I am just a scientist not a climatologist, but together
with my 17,000 colleagues, I recognize shades of pathological science in
the sense of Nobel prize winning physical chemist Irving Langmuir when I
encounter it.
Best regards,
Fritz
*****************************************************
Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
Sigma Five Consulting: Private:
P.O. Box 1709 P.O. Box 437
Los Lunas, NM 87031 Tome', NM 87060
Tel.: 505-866-5193 Tel. 505-866-6976
Fax: 505-866-5197 USA
*****************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of John Fleck
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:39 PM
To: radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!
I think one should be cautious before citing the OISM petition.
It was based on what might charitably be called an act of academic sleight
of hand: a "review paper" set in the typographic style of the PNAS in a
transparent attempt to led credibility to it, sent to an apparently enormous
number of scientists - in all fields, not only climate - along with a
petition for them to sign. The "review paper" might best be described as a
brief for the plaintiffs, not a genuine review of the evidence. How many
scientists was it sent to? That would seem a relevant fact that would allow
one to better judge how many scientists declined to sign it. Alas, Arthur
Robinson, its author, won't say. "We're not willing to have our opponents
attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are
against us," he told a reporter for Nature in 1998.
************************************************************************
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 can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/