Re: [Phys-l] Draft of new international climate report warns of droughts, sta...

[Faraday321@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/12/2007 1:05:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
betwys1@sbcglobal.net writes:

At 05:39  AM 3/12/2007, Bob Zannelli, you wrote:

> So this  is the  considered review of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix of an
> AP draft   report
> as to what world scientists will say next month in   Belgium?
> Who better to spread the word!
> Brian   Whatcott

> Does this mean you will take the report seriously? Or will  you be sticking
> with the Exxon Mobile crowd?  Who better to  trust?
>
> Bob Zannelli

That's a tough one,Bob. I prefer to  take no one on trust.
For example, here's something else in the same  genre:
 
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
 
None of us ( certainly not me) is expert enough in every field to avoid  
reaching the point where ,  to a degree , you can avoid the  need to trust 
something or someone. The degree of trust should be as  minimal as possible and every 
one should do their best to get at the facts and  analysis to hold an 
informed opinion. But these vital type questions which are  used to inform policy 
must be decided by common consensus of the general public.  That's how democracy 
works. So any thoughtful citizen might well logically trust  the views of a 
majority of climate scientists verses a soulless multinational  corporation 
which views green house gas emission restriction as a bottom line  issue and the 
opinions of a small minority of climatologists  who agree  with Exxon Mobile 
and are often funded by them. In addition ,  the effects  of global warming are 
so obvious now  that even Exxon Mobile has recently  stopped denying it and is 
now fall back on the  " It ain't us ploy.  It's sunspots ,  its earth wobble 
etc. However the vast majority of  climatologists point out that these 
identified climate factors generate the  expected effect up until the point of 
significant green house gas build up where  the climate model predictions for these 
causes diverge from what we see on  global temperature. You may not know this 
but the Bush administration has  cut most of NASA's climate research. So any 
reasonably intelligent person would  not trust them or the corporate interest 
they work for. 
 
It's  my opinion the human caused global warming doubting crowd  is on the 
same level of respectability and credibility as the  intelligent design crowd 
and in fact are funded from the same general sources  and share the same 
political views. At this point ,  this is what I have  come to trust. 
 
Bob Zannelli

))))))))))))))))

The Chilling Stars by Henrik  Svensmark
a book co production with Nigel Calder, a science  journalist,
and one time editor of New Scientist.

I think  Nigel was invited to leave that job when he wrote up
telepathy or  telekinesis  or some such in NS.
Don't remember the details  now.

Svensmark has an interesting hypothesis: that cosmic rays  stimulate
cloud formation.   That's a supposition that I  don't suppose a physicist
would care to refute -  at least not on the  small scale: it is the prime
mover for cloud chambers in particle  accelerators.



Brian Whatcott    Altus OK     Eureka! 



<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.