tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post5235200102789557270..comments2024-01-01T15:35:12.954-07:00Comments on Simple Utah Mormon Politics: Bad News for Man-Caused Global Warming EvangelistsFrank Stahelihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-48844373568221247302007-12-29T12:12:00.000-07:002007-12-29T12:12:00.000-07:00I completely agree. From the perspective of clean...I completely agree. From the perspective of cleaning up the environment, I think we should do more, including China.<BR/><BR/>I wrote about their scheduled emergence as the world's biggest polluter <A HREF="http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/china-will-soon-be-biggest-polluter.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>That's why I'm so frustrated by some manmade global warming advocates, particularly of the Kyoto kind. It did nothing to improve the environment, but it gives a lot of people a soapbox from which they hypocritically preach to the rest of us.<BR/><BR/>It seems like the recent Bali conference may have accomplished something, <A HREF="http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10329203&CFID=2229256&CFTOKEN=82703dde379675af-27509842-B27C-BB00-012BFE6DE85A38D5" REL="nofollow">improving our ability to keep earth forested.</A>Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-33162024903385126222007-12-28T22:21:00.000-07:002007-12-28T22:21:00.000-07:00GW is potentially a very troubling issue for all o...GW is potentially a very troubling issue for all of the planet and merits scrutiny, study and action by all of us. China is likely to replace us shortly as the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases and so far they appear to be unwilling to change their practice of completing at least one new coal fired electric facility weekly.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-36118361235463872502007-12-28T18:28:00.000-07:002007-12-28T18:28:00.000-07:00WP,I appreciate your reply and your willingness to...WP,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your reply and your willingness to look at both sides of the issue.<BR/><BR/>You and Anonymous have helped educate me on--for me--an opposite perspective, and I realize that there is a lot that I don't know about it.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-68662056908933159622007-12-28T12:07:00.000-07:002007-12-28T12:07:00.000-07:00No Frank it was another prof. I started with an op...No Frank it was another prof. I started with an open mind about GW, but I confess I was born a Dem. I have heard persuasive arguments from both sides. As I said I invested in the Journal Science so I could read and access their online archives. Yes, there are a number of credible scientists who say GW is a consequence of solar activity and part of the normal cycle of things. Similar situation occurred in the Roman era when grapes and wine making even olives were grown in Germany and northern Europa. Time will tell as the subject is studied. Ultimately, I have faith in the system and science will prevail. For the present I am persuaded GW is anthropogenic or man caused.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-35411253223755237002007-12-28T08:42:00.000-07:002007-12-28T08:42:00.000-07:00By the way, WP:Have any of the podcasts that you l...By the way, WP:<BR/><BR/>Have any of the podcasts that you listened to at Stanford University been from Stephen Schneider, he of 1970's "we're approaching an ice age" fame?<BR/><BR/>My point here is that all of us need to broaden our horizons and not just think because we've heard one point of view that we know everything there is to know about a subject.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-20503606353824025992007-12-27T21:10:00.000-07:002007-12-27T21:10:00.000-07:00OK FrankOK FrankGeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-80345887259307299942007-12-27T18:38:00.000-07:002007-12-27T18:38:00.000-07:00Anon,I studied most of your links for about 2 hour...Anon,<BR/><BR/>I studied most of your links for about 2 hours. Here are some comments:<BR/><BR/>The 90% figure is that man's effect on the environment is "detectable", not significant. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-<BR/>fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/<BR/><BR/>Whether it's actually detectable at all is left to doubt.<BR/><BR/>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/global_warming_update2.html says much the same thing about the confidence level. <BR/><BR/>http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html Under the section "What can we predict?" Says this: "Climate models can give us this kind of information - What is most <BR/>likely to happen and what will be very unlikely to happen to the climate in the future." Over the next 50 years, the avg temp will increase by .5 to 1 degree Celsius.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870 refutes some of what WP said earlier on this thread: "there is no indication that ExxonMobil paid the climate skeptics directly and the scientists may have their own motivations for participating" Environmental defense also has this doozy http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5371 supposedly "11 facts that will blow you away" but which mean absolutely nothing as they are completely isolated from comparison with long-term historical trends.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-58533498024403279442007-12-27T18:01:00.000-07:002007-12-27T18:01:00.000-07:00Mr. Bell,Your irascible comments are lacking in su...Mr. Bell,<BR/><BR/>Your irascible comments are lacking in substance and are meant to be nothing but provocative. Please stop insinuating that I am a maniac bent on destroying the earth; we've already plowed that ground, and it's clear that I believe in as much stewardship (or more) than you.<BR/><BR/>WP,<BR/><BR/>My comment about being far afield was directed toward your shoddy claims that Frederick Seitz admitted that he was paid by the tobacco industry--he did no such thing, and it's not hard to find out the truth of that matter.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, your contribution to the debate has been enlightening. As you'll see from my previous comments, I did not know, for example, that Bush and Cheney had had secret meetings with oil companies, and that oil companies had financed the spreading of skepticism that man was causing global warming.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-79147052269540860122007-12-27T14:19:00.000-07:002007-12-27T14:19:00.000-07:00http://www.storyofstuff.com/Well, I guess this mus...http://www.storyofstuff.com/<BR/><BR/>Well, I guess this must be the most evil, anti-American lady in the world.JM Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00005921246951747078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-70555067295570271542007-12-27T12:12:00.000-07:002007-12-27T12:12:00.000-07:00Be careful Anon. Since you do not agree with the p...Be careful Anon. Since you do not agree with the proprietor of SUMP you could be taking a good discussion too far afield.<BR/><BR/>Could not agree more with you based on my reading of a number of journal articles in "Science" and podcasts from paleoclimatologists at Stanford U. <BR/><BR/>Too many read and listen to the 'inconvenient' Glenn Beck I think for their science and understanding of this issue. <BR/><BR/>Pardon me Frank for commenting again and disagreeing with you.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-27583981904978027942007-12-27T11:42:00.000-07:002007-12-27T11:42:00.000-07:00The vast majority of climate scientists believe th...The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change. <BR/><BR/>The issue is not a political one but a scientific one, based on observations. As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth. If you were ill would you trust a fellow Digger, blogger or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion?<BR/><BR/>Who are the real experts? Is there enough evidence for them to come to a consensus conclusion? National Science Academies would be a good place to start.<BR/><BR/>The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC<BR/><BR/>“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”<BR/><BR/>National Academy of Sciences (US),<BR/>Royal Society (United Kingdom),<BR/>Chinese Academy of Sciences,<BR/>Science Council of Japan,<BR/>Russian Academy of Sciences,<BR/>Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),<BR/>Royal Society of Canada,<BR/>Académie des Sciences (France),<BR/>Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),<BR/>Indian National Science Academy,<BR/>Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),<BR/>Australian Academy of Sciences,<BR/>Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,<BR/>Caribbean Academy of Sciences,<BR/>Indonesian Academy of Sciences,<BR/>Royal Irish Academy,<BR/>Academy of Sciences Malaysia,<BR/>Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,<BR/>Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.<BR/><BR/>Source: http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 Royal Society 2001<BR/>http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 Royal Society 2005<BR/>http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on_Climate_Change For the comments of other scientific bodies<BR/><BR/>The scientific evidence and consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.<BR/><BR/>No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.<BR/><BR/>Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0<BR/><BR/>Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide27.pdf<BR/><BR/>but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf<BR/><BR/><BR/>UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths<BR/>http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html<BR/><BR/>New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims<BR/>http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462<BR/><BR/>Oxford University intro to climate<BR/>http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html<BR/><BR/>NASA intro to climate<BR/>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/<BR/><BR/>Climate denial is like the tobacco industry funding their shills. Who should we trust mainstream science or big business shills? http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-19081398751553023712007-12-27T10:57:00.000-07:002007-12-27T10:57:00.000-07:00Pardon me for taking you too far afield good buddy...Pardon me for taking you too far afield good buddy, 10-4 and out, over.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-11654214223148166932007-12-27T10:55:00.000-07:002007-12-27T10:55:00.000-07:00WP,The article you linked to (I think here) about ...WP,<BR/><BR/>The article you linked to (<A HREF="http://www.net.org/warming/skeptic.vtml" REL="nofollow">I think here</A>) about Fredrick Seitz CLAIMS that he "Admits" to what they CLAIM, but there is NOTHING on or linked to the article that corroborates this.<BR/><BR/>If you want to know the truth, <A HREF="http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=041406F" REL="nofollow">go here</A>. The guy interviewed Seitz and Seitz says about the claim to his tobacco link that they are FOC (full of crap).<BR/><BR/>You're taking an otherwise good discussion far afield because you so badly want to believe things that aren't true.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-47298625472227519312007-12-27T10:30:00.000-07:002007-12-27T10:30:00.000-07:00Mas noticias para ti:NOVEMBER 15, 2006Global Warmi...Mas noticias para ti:<BR/><BR/>NOVEMBER 15, 2006<BR/>Global Warming Doubt Linked to Tobacco Industry<BR/>Good bed mates: Global warming doubt and Tobacco<BR/><BR/>While at a conference in San Francisco this week, I happened across an interesting PBS story on Product Defense which directly links the tobacco industry to the claim that global warming isn’t happening. Firms specializing in product defense create “grass root coalitions” that cast doubt on scientific research when it directly affects a product’s bottom line revenues. <BR/><BR/>An example of spinning science for the purpose of confusing the public while benefiting Big Business is on the health hazards of second-hand smoke. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a coalition that cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health. According to the BBC, Philip Morris decided to “link the tobacco issues with other more politically correct products’ and the campaign on issues like global warming”. <BR/><BR/>The result was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.” Watch it. <BR/><BR/>And surprise surprise, Exxon Mobil contributes money to this coalition as well. Glad to know their record-breaking quarterly profits ($10.5 B) are going to such a good cause. <BR/><BR/>By<BR/>Erin Swanson<BR/>Eswanson@enviance.comGeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-56046297299189017112007-12-27T10:22:00.000-07:002007-12-27T10:22:00.000-07:00First a comment on your global warming article exc...First a comment on your global warming article excerpts. I found and read on <A HREF="http://www.democracynow.org/2005/4/22/report_exxonmobil_spends_millions_funding_global" REL="nofollow">DemocracyNow</A> (I think) the interview you were referring to. It's interesting that DemocracyNow claims that "ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming" when that is clearly not the case. It is very lacking in integrity when people try to obfuscate the FACT that MAN'S LINK to global warming is the issue being challenged and not global warming itself.<BR/><BR/>Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute made it clear in the interview that it was the disputation of the Kyoto treaty and its assumptions about how global warming is caused that had been the target of Exxon's funding. That is a pittance compared the $8.5 BILLION that the pro-man-caused-global-warming advocates spent during the same period. Not only did Exxon spend over 1,000 times LESS than their opponents, it was not for the purpose that you claimed. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE between claiming that global warming is not real and funding an effort to clear up obvious misconceptions about how it is caused.<BR/><BR/>Your quote from the MSNBC article of the Exxon spokesman that <EM>"its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is."</EM><BR/>is a huge understatement.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-88158850112492183812007-12-27T10:05:00.000-07:002007-12-27T10:05:00.000-07:00One scientist who cast doubts about the anthropoge...One scientist who cast doubts about the anthropogenic connections to GW admits he was paid nearly a million bucks to lie about smoking and lung cancer. Here is another little bonus for you: <BR/><BR/>"SCIENTIST WHO SPEARHEADED ATTACKS ON GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE ALSO DIRECTED $45 MILLION TOBACCO INDUSTRY EFFORT TO HIDE HEALTH IMPACTS OF SMOKING<BR/><BR/>FORMER NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PRESIDENT ADMITS BEING PAID $585,000 BY TOBACCO COMPANIES<BR/><BR/> <BR/>The National Environmental Trust hosted a press conference on April 13th to discuss new revelations in the May issue of Vanity Fair (now on newsstands) linking one of the most prominent scientific skeptics on global warming and his tactics to the three-decade tobacco industry conspiracy to hide the connection between smoking and lung ailments — an effort that has led to billions of dollars in court judgments and legislation against the industry.<BR/><BR/>Listen to the briefing [mp3, 6 megs]<BR/><BR/><BR/>Read an industry media plan to oppose global warming [PDF] — an April 3, 1998 American Petroleum Institute strategy memo on its public relations campaign to plant doubts about global warming science.<BR/>PARTICIPANTS<BR/><BR/>Mark Hertsgaard, investigative journalist and author of Vanity Fair's May cover story, "While Washington Slept," described in detail how Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and one of the most often-quoted skeptics on global warming, was paid over half a million dollars by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the connection between smoking and cancer. Seitz went on to spearhead a campaign to cast scientific doubt about global warming.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, addressed the state of climate science and the disruptive role industry-backed skeptics have played in clouding the near-unanimous findings of global warming scientists.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-45791384377946562662007-12-27T10:00:00.000-07:002007-12-27T10:00:00.000-07:00Here's just a couple from MoJo News and MSNBC abou...Here's just a couple from MoJo News and MSNBC about Exxon funding orgs to downplay the effects of GW:<BR/><BR/>Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics<BR/>A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming. We speak with the author of the report, a member of one the organizations that receives money from Exxon and a journalist covering environmental and climate change issues.<BR/><BR/>MSNBC staff and news service reports<BR/>updated 11:42 a.m. MT, Fri., Jan. 12, 2007<BR/>NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.<BR/>Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.<BR/>Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”<BR/><BR/>CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”<BR/>Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.<BR/>Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-60757928941350402372007-12-27T09:30:00.000-07:002007-12-27T09:30:00.000-07:00Woops that sounded weird. Of course there's a lin...Woops that sounded weird. Of course there's a link between tobacco and lung cancer ;-) I meant the link to the organizations ("Exxon and others") who said that tobacco didn't cause lung cancer and that man did not cause global warming.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-7344586678815603582007-12-27T08:58:00.000-07:002007-12-27T08:58:00.000-07:00I've heard that tobacco-lung cancer link as well, ...I've heard that tobacco-lung cancer link as well, but I've never seen any proof of it. <BR/><BR/>That all sounds pretty fishy considering <A HREF="http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-did-they-sue-all-those-tobacco.html" REL="nofollow">what the lawsuits against the tobacco companies were all about.</A>Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-86305568854128623592007-12-27T05:55:00.000-07:002007-12-27T05:55:00.000-07:00There have been a couple WSJ, NYT and WA Post arti...There have been a couple WSJ, NYT and WA Post articles on the various organizations Exxon among others have paid to disseminate the word that the GW is not manmade. Get back to you. It is old news. These very organizations back in the 70's said and were hired to say there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer Frank, same ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-33357017952028059622007-12-26T20:37:00.000-07:002007-12-26T20:37:00.000-07:00I read the article. It does not surprise me that ...I read the article. It does not surprise me that Bush and Cheney cavort with oil magnates. I believe they met in secret. Secret is what W and Cheney are all about. That's the establishment way of doing things. <BR/><BR/>But how does that prove your point, that oil magnates are paying people to discount man-made global warming? I have yet to see an article about that.<BR/><BR/>Gore is part of the establishment as well. He's making big money offering his snake-oil theories and movies. <BR/><BR/>When it gets right down to it, the people who really study the issue come to one of two conclusions: (1) the earth is warming, but his has warmed and cooled in several iterations before, or (2) the earth is warming, and we're afraid that it might warm out of control, but we're not sure.<BR/><BR/>Those, if you get right down to it, are the two perspectives.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-9751986277960519892007-12-26T18:33:00.000-07:002007-12-26T18:33:00.000-07:00Here's a link to one Washington Post article in 20...Here's a link to one Washington Post article in 2001 wherein oil executives met with Cheney's people to insure US energy policy benefited their companies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.htmlGeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112174152213184594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-41825510084121154732007-12-26T16:48:00.000-07:002007-12-26T16:48:00.000-07:00I don't follow how Exxon and Chevron are in Bush/C...I don't follow how Exxon and Chevron are in Bush/Cheney's pockets, nor have I seen any evidence of it.<BR/><BR/>What I have seen is that government-paid (i.e. the UN) scientists will not get paid unless they toe the party line on man-caused global warming. It is very clear that those scientists (and there are a lot of them) who do not subscribe to the fabricated "consensus" are ostracized by the IPCC--a body of politicians more than they are scientists.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-31881215400347190172007-12-26T16:03:00.000-07:002007-12-26T16:03:00.000-07:00Nah, "Science" is published by thee American Acade...Nah, "Science" is published by thee American Academy of Sciences and maintains a vigorous independence. The establishment is the Exxon, Bush, Haliburton, Cheney, Chevron cabal. Gore and company have no establishment to co-opt anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-8619297348400317492007-12-26T15:53:00.000-07:002007-12-26T15:53:00.000-07:00Thanks for your reply. It's good for me to be abl...Thanks for your reply. It's good for me to be able to see where you're coming from. My hunch is that Science magazine may be as co-opted by the Establishment as is the IPCC and the conference at Bali that wouldn't allow the International Climate Science Coalition to make their presentation of clear evidence that man is having a negligible effect on global warming.<BR/><BR/>Science magazine or not, there is a plethora of scientists who do not think man is causing global warming. Those who do are generally unsure, but they are afraid that if we don't do something now it will be too late.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.com