Re: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!

[maury <maury@webtexas.com>]

Just wish to recognize that there is overwhelming evidence for some global

warming in some regions of the globe. I did not mean to suggest ignoring the

varieties of evidence cited by Jim Dukelow, John Fleck, Fritz Seiler, and

others; similarly, there was no intent to suggest making science by petitions

(which differs from experimental consensus).



A principal argument centers on if and to what extent observed climate changes

are

anthropometric.



My conclusions from the balance of available evidence is simply that the

anthropometric component of total variance in climate change is trivial.



Obviously, this arguable conclusion is subject to change as more evidence is

collected. Similarly, there was no intent to impugn the value of models in

science. I just am persuaded  that "we are not there yet" and that there simply

is no basis yet for any massive policy constructions to ward off global climate

changes.



Chicanery in any form is regrettable and should be recognized, but it is a very

real and not always trivial anthropometric given.



Cheers,

Maury Siskel           maurysis@ev1.net



======================

jjcohen wrote:



>   I am not a proponent of science-by-plebiscite, but I think we are missing

> the point on  the objective of the 17,000 signature petition. This objective

> is not to prove or disprove global warming



------------lots of excellent comments snipped ------