[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!



I certainly agree that we should not have

science-by-plediscite.  However, this is what this is.

 National commissions have studied the issues, and it

is my understanding that they believe that problems

are real and man-made effects are causing or

accelerating the climate changes.  If we choose to

discount this reports, what mechanisms should we use?





--- jjcohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> 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

> phenomena. Most of the public and

> just about all of the news media believe  a pending

> global warming

> catastrophe to be a God-given fact. Perhaps if that

> faith can be shaken a

> little,  related policies could become more

> rational.

> 

> 

> 

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

>   From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

>   To: Fritz A. Seiler <faseiler@NMIA.COM>; John

> Fleck

> <jfleck@abqjournal.com>;

> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

>   Cc: RISKANAL Mailinglist <riskanal@lyris.pnl.gov>;

> Joseph L. Alvarez

> <jalvarez@auxier.com>

>   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:50 AM

>   Subject: RE: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal

> Warming Hoax!

> 

> 

>   > Hi, Fritz,

>   > Thanks for the comments.

>   > Like you, I am not a climitologists. 

> Consequently,

>   > who should I believe?

>   > My impression is that there has been a great

> deal of

>   > problems with climate data collection, analysis

> and

>   > model.  There have been a number of reports

>   > commissioned on the subject.

>   >

>

http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover.cgi?act=dourl&restric=NAP&url=.nap.edu/o

> penbook/0309068916/html/index.html

>   >  Can they all be wrong?  Could the data be

> getting

>   > better, and the models more accuarte?

>   >

>   > I still question the determination of scientific

>   > issues by signing petitions.  What if 34,000

> science

>   > sign a petition that global warming exists?  Who

> would

>   > you believe?

>   >

>   > --- "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@NMIA.COM> wrote:

>   > > 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

> 

=== message truncated ===





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"We cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads."

-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com





	

		

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

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

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/