Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Global Warming Petition Project
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  17 messages - Expand all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Arnold Jagt  
View profile  
 More options Apr 22 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Arnold Jagt <aj...@entrewave.com>
Date: 1998/04/22
Subject: Global Warming Petition Project

Website: Petition Project at http://www.sitewave.net/pproject
Section: Global Warming Review
Topic: Letter from Frederick Seitz
Title: Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of
"global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please
consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international
agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies
that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic
compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research
data on climate change do not show that human use of
hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence
that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally
helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the
technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are
currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities
to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped
countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who
have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer
sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like
more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Website: Petition Project at http://www.sitewave.net/pproject
Section: Global Warming Review
Topic: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide
Title: Abstract

Click here to receive this document in PDF format.

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE
SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd.,
Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 i...@oism.org

George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905,
Washington, DC 20006 i...@marshall.org January 1998

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental
consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have
produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or
temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly
increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects
due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in
error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Title: Summary

World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to
consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,''
chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global
warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface
temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences.
Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate
modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical
evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no
man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades,
when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average
temperatures have actually cooled slightly.

To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the
Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is
reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much
of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be
benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that
depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating
carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the
atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living
organisms.

Title: Rise In Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased
during the past century, as shown in figure 1 (1).

     Figure 1 Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in parts per
     million by volume, ppm, at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. These
     measurements agree well with those at other locations (1).
     Periodic cycle is caused by seasonal variations in CO2
     absorption by plants. Approximate global level of
     atmospheric CO2 in 1900 and 1940 is also displayed (2).

The annual cycles in figure 1 are the result of seasonal variations in
plant use of carbon dioxide. Solid horizontal lines show the levels
that prevailed in 1900 and 1940 (2). The magnitude of this
atmospheric increase during the 1980s was about 3 gigatons of
carbon (Gt C) per year (3). Total human CO2 emissions primarily
from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement
are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.

To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the
atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000
Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the
intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). Each year,
the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C;
vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the
surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate
and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).

     Figure 2 Surface temperatures in the Sargaso Sea (with time
     resolution of about 50 years) ending in 1975 as determined
     by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at
     the bottom of the sea (7). The horizontal line is the average
     temperature for this 3,000 year period. The Little Ice Age
     and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring,
     extended intervals of climate departures from the mean.

So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of
exchange between them, and the uncertainties with which these
numbers are estimated that the source of the recent rise in
atmospheric carbon dioxide has not been determined with certainty
(4). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have
varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some
estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at
approximately 18th-Century levels (5).

The current increase in carbon dioxide follows a 300-year warming
trend: Surface and atmospheric temperatures have been recovering
from an unusually cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The
observed increases are of a magnitude that can, for example, be
explained by oceans giving off gases naturally as temperatures rise.
Indeed, recent carbon dioxide rises have shown a tendency to
follow rather than lead global temperature increases (6).

There is, however, a widely believed hypothesis that the 3 Gt C per
year rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is the result of the 5.5 Gt C
per year release of carbon dioxide from human activities. This
hypothesis is reasonable, since the magnitudes of human release and
atmospheric rise are comparable, and the atmospheric rise has
occurred contemporaneously with the increase in production of
CO2 from human activities since the Industrial Revolution.

     Figure 3 Moving 11-year average of terrestrial Northern
     Hemisphere peratures as deviations in ºC from the
     1951-1970 mean left axis and darker line (8,9). Solar
     magnetic cycle lengths right axis and lighter line (10). The
     shorter the magnetic cycle length, the more active, and hence
     brighter, the sun.

Title: Atmospheric And Surface Temperatures

In any case, what effect is the rise in CO2 having upon the global
environment? The temperature of the Earth varies naturally over a
wide range. Figure 2 summarizes, for example, surface
temperatures in the Sargaso Sea (a region of the Atlantic Ocean)
during the past 3,000 years (7). Sea surface temperatures at this
location have varied over a range of about 3.6 degrees Celsius (ºC)
during the past 3,000 years. Trends in these data correspond to
similar features that are known from the historical record.

     Figure 4 Annual mean surface temperatures in the contiguous
     United States between 1895 and 1997, as compiled by the
     National Climate Data Center (12). Horizontal line is the
     103-year mean. The trend line for this 103-year period has a
     slope of 0.022 ºC per decade or 0.22 ºC per century. The
     trend line for 1940 to 1997 has a slope of 0.008 ºC per
     decade or 0.08 ºC per century.

For example, about 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the
''Little Ice Age.'' It had descended into this relatively cool period
from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the
''Medieval Climate Optimum.'' During the Medieval Climate
Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the
colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after
the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global
temperatures have been gradually recovering (11). As shown in
figure 2, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000
years. The human historical record does not report ''global
warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far
higher during much of the last three millennia.

What causes such variations in Earth's temperature? The answer
may be fluctuations in solar activity. Figure 3 shows the period of
warming from the Little Ice Age in greater detail by means of an
11-year moving average of surface temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere (10). Also shown are solar magnetic cycle lengths for
the same period. It is clear that even relatively short,
half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with
variations in solar activity. When the cycles are short, the sun is
more active, hence brighter; and the Earth is warmer. These
variations in the activity of the sun are typical of stars close in mass
and age to the sun (13).

Figure 4 shows the annual average temperatures of the United
States as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). The
most recent upward temperature fluctuation from the Little Ice Age
(between 1900 and 1940), as shown in the ...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Thomas Palm  
View profile  
 More options Apr 23 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Thomas Palm <ekat...@nospam.eka.ericsson.se>
Date: 1998/04/23
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

Arnold Jagt wrote:
> Website: Petition Project at http://www.sitewave.net/pproject
> Section: Global Warming Review
> Topic: Letter from Frederick Seitz
> Title: Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

> Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of
> "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please
> consider these materials carefully.

So, has anybody more qualified than I bothered to check this
petition? It seems to be the usual selective information and
misrepresentation of data, but considering the credentials of
Seitz if would be useful if someone with better knowledge in
the field took the time for a more detailed critizism.

Just to give one example: (choosen more because I got curious at
the claim and checked the reference than because it is the most
misleading statement in the petition.)

> Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have
> varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some
> estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at
> approximately 18th-Century levels (5).

This article really deals with geological timescales. That uncertain
20-fold higher CO2 rate happened 500 _million_ year ago. Of course,
in a diagram showing that timescale small fluctuations like ice
ages doesn't show which explains the strange claim that the lows have
been at "about 18th-century levels". During the last ice-age
CO2 was approximately one third lower than 18-th century level.
A significant difference!

I really can't imagine what significance the CO2 level half a
billion year has for whether increasing CO2 is sensible now, but
as propaganda I guess it sounds good to state that there has been
much more CO2 earlier in history.

> During the past 6 weeks, more than 15,000 basic and applied
> American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed
> the Global Warming Petition.

I can't understand how this kind of propaganda can get signed by
so many people.

Thomas Palm


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Stewart Rowe  
View profile  
 More options Apr 23 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ae...@yfn.ysu.edu (Stewart Rowe)
Date: 1998/04/23
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

In a previous article, ekat...@nospam.eka.ericsson.se (Thomas Palm) says:

Yesterday, the governing Council of the National Academy of Science
took the unprecedented step of dissociating itself from this
"petition project". This was necessary because Dr. Seitz, the industry-
sponsored "big name" on the project, identified himself as a
past president of NAS, and because the views expressed by the
hitherto unknown autors of the "study" were contrary to the
conclusions of the Academy's study and of the international
committee of experts convened by the IPCC.

For more information, search the New York Times or the Washington
Post for yesterday (4/22) for "global warming", or visit
the Sierra Club web site at www.toowarm.org.

        Stewart Rowe sr...@tso.cin.ix.net


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
c g hughes  
View profile  
 More options Apr 23 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: c g hughes <cghug...@erols.com>
Date: 1998/04/23
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

See also SCIENCE Vol 280, 10 April 98 p. 195 "Advocacy Mailing Draws
Fire" . Freddie's letter refered to the only pre- or reprint I ever saw
that did  not mention the journal's name. It was an article with no
peer-review written so the Wall Street Journal could quote it in an
article - Also convienently enclosed - that alleged that Global Warming
was just a myth. Freddie did not reply to his e-mail when I pointed this
out.
--
Carroll Hughes
Physicist

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Michael Tobis  
View profile  
 More options Apr 23 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 1998/04/23
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

Thomas Palm (ekat...@nospam.eka.ericsson.se) wrote:

: > During the past 6 weeks, more than 15,000 basic and applied
: > American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed
: > the Global Warming Petition.

: I can't understand how this kind of propaganda can get signed by
: so many people.

The New York Times, in an article describing the unprecedented
disavowal of the mailing by the National Academy and their objection
to the use of their journal format by an unreviewed article, pointed
out that the vast majority of these signatories were not expert in
any relevant disciplines.

The propaganda campaign has been very effective in swaying influential
opinion makers, notably the obviously libertarian-leaning financial press,
but also some literate and liberal though not especially competent
reporters, notably Greg Easterbrook who is the voice of Newsweek and
the New Republic on these matters.

The coal industry has also been remarkably effective in distributing
their pet spokesmen in the vicinity of Washington and New York, thus
having disproportionate influence on the national press.

There are many (a couple of million?) people who are qualified to sign this
petition. Getting 15,000 of them is quite an accomplishment, but it
doesn't represent a majority by any means. On the other hand, the actual
state of knowledge is very badly represented on this matter, as well
as on many others with a controversial policy component. I think
this speaks to the competence of the propagandists more than to the
gullibility of the signers.

mt


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
John McCarthy  
View profile  
 More options Apr 23 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 1998/04/23
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

The leaders of the National Academy of Sciences have shown increasing
tendencies to join bandwagons, and their past president has annoyed
them on many occasions.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
hans hanson  
View profile  
 More options Apr 23 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: ca.environment, sci.environment, talk.environment, talk.politics
From: "hans hanson" <han...@quick.net>
Date: 1998/04/23
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

Thomas Palm wrote in message <353F36E8.3...@nospam.eka.ericsson.se>...
>Arnold Jagt wrote:
>> Topic: Letter from Frederick Seitz
>> Title: Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
>So, has anybody more qualified than I bothered to check this
>petition? It seems to be the usual selective information and
>misrepresentation of data.............
>> During the past 6 weeks, more than 15,000 basic and applied
>> American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed
>> the Global Warming Petition.
>I can't understand how this kind of propaganda can get signed by
>so many people.
>Thomas Palm

Gosh man!
It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad science or propaganda.
Why do you think the debate is so hot and acrid?
Don't you understand yet? Haven't you gotten it yet?
It's not about global warming at all! It's about  MONEY! GRANTS!
Nobody is nor will be able to change an iota about the climate!
We can't even stop the rain from a single cloud. Think about it.
But the Kyoto process will be very successful in starting and stopping
incomes and transferring wealth like mankind has never seen before.
So get on "right" side, sing along and bring a 10 gallon hat with you.
........
Don't you remember the last time they pulled a stunt like this one?
The billions in the superfund... where >90% went for lawyer fees instead
of toxic waste site clean ups.  And this was in the US only. Now they
have learned. They raised the stake and upped the ante. This time
it's global, man. This is a biggie! Get with it. Get rich..... ECO-RICH!
hanson

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
JimN469897  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jimn469...@aol.com (JimN469897)
Date: 1998/04/24
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

>Yesterday, the governing Council of the National Academy of Science
>took the unprecedented step of dissociating itself from this
>"petition project". This was necessary because Dr. Seitz, the industry-
>sponsored "big name" on the project, identified himself as a
>past president of NAS, and because the views expressed by the
>hitherto unknown autors of the "study" were contrary to the
>conclusions of the Academy's study and of the international
>committee of experts convened by the IPCC.

>For more information, search the New York Times or the Washington
>Post for yesterday (4/22) for "global warming", or visit
>the Sierra Club web site at www.toowarm.org.

The NY Times also indicated that the report looked like it was a published
scientific report, which it is not.  You would think by now that the
browlashers would have learned that this type of nonsence always backfires.

Jim Norton
http://members.aol.com/jimn469897/myths.htm


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rich Puchalsky  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky)
Date: 1998/04/24
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

Michael Tobis (to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:

: Thomas Palm (ekat...@nospam.eka.ericsson.se) wrote:

: : > During the past 6 weeks, more than 15,000 basic and applied
: : > American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed
: : > the Global Warming Petition.

: : I can't understand how this kind of propaganda can get signed by
: : so many people.

: ... I think
: this speaks to the competence of the propagandists more than to the
: gullibility of the signers.

Oh, the propagandists were competent.  But I would assume that the signers
were mainly ideologically motivated.  I've seen the contents of the
petition package; it contains a Wall Street Journal article.  If anyone
ever sent me a petition on a scientific issue, and then backed it up
with a Wall Street Journal article, I'd instantly think that these people
either didn't know what they were doing or were ideologues.  

If anyone did sign it out of gullibility rather than reflexive right-wing
sympathy, they were very gullible.

--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Harold Lindaberry  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Harold Lindaberry <harl...@epix.net>
Date: 1998/04/24
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

    The only comment I care to make about the ECOFREAK the approach to science
is that their motto  is ( Don't confuse them with facts DAZZLE  them with BULL
SHIT and of course rhetoric )

Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Michael Tobis  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 1998/04/24
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: The leaders of the National Academy of Sciences have shown increasing
: tendencies to join bandwagons, and their past president has annoyed
: them on many occasions.

Ah, yes, the infamous "substantive evidence bandwagon". Shameful.

mt


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
KMorrisD  
View profile  
 More options Apr 25 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: kmorr...@aol.com (KMorrisD)
Date: 1998/04/25
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

Oh sure.  And the oily-coaly-gassy boys won't lose on their stock options if
people really start to wake up to the risks associated with climate change?
What do you think the ratio of profit:loss might be? One:gazillion?

Karl Davies


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION (was Re: Global Warming Petition Project)" by Paul D. Farrar
Paul D. Farrar  
View profile  
 More options Apr 25 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: far...@datasync.com (Paul D. Farrar)
Date: 1998/04/25
Subject: STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION (was Re: Global Warming Petition Project)

STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION

April 20, 1998

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned
about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter
from a former president of this Academy.  This petition criticizes the
science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the
Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it
asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S.
Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall
Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical
to that of scientific articles published in the _Proceedings of the
National
Academy of Sciences_.  The NAS Council would like to make it clear
that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of
Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the _Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences_ or in any other peer-reviewed
journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the
Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a
major consensus study on this issue, entitled _Policy Implications of
Greenhouse Warming_ (1991,1992).  This analysis concluded that
"...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the
relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat
sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation
measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties
and the possibility of dramatic surprises."  In addition, the
Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council,
the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report
later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the
scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena,
including climate change.

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
COUNCIL

Bruce Alberts (president)
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.

Jack Halpern (vice president)
Louis Block Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Department of Chemistry
University of Chicago

Peter H. Raven (home secretary)
DirectorMissouri Botanical Garden
St. Louis

F. Sherwood Rowland (foreign secretary)
Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System Science
Department of Chemistry
University of California
Irvine

Ronald L. Graham (treasurer)
Chief Scientist
AT&T Laboratories
Florham Park, N.J.

Mary Ellen Avery
Professor of Pediatrics
Harvard Medical School
Boston

Ralph J. Cicerone
Chancellor-Designate
Dean, School of Physical Sciences, and Daniel G. Aldrich Professor of
Earth System Science
Department of Earth System Science
University of California
Irvine

Edward E. David Jr.(1)
President
EED Inc.
Bedminster, N.J.

Marye Anne Fox
Chancellor-Designate
North Carolina State University, and
Vice President for Research and M. June and J. Virgil Waggoner Regents
Chair in Chemistry
Department of Chemistry
University of Texas
Austin

Ralph E. Gomory(2)
President
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
New York City

David M. Kipnis
Distinguished University Professor
Department of Internal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis

Daniel E. Koshland Jr.
Professor in the Graduate School
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California
Berkeley

Mary-Lou Pardue
Boris Magasanik Professor
Department of Biology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Luis Sequeira
J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus
Department of Plant Pathology
University of Wisconsin
Madison

I.M. Singer
Institute Professor
Department of Mathematics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Robert H. Wurtz
Chief
Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research
National Eye Institute
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Md.

Richard N. Zare
Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor
Department of Chemistry
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.
___________________________________
(1) abstained
(2) unable to participate
--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "Global Warming Petition Project" by Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds  
View profile  
 More options Apr 25 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 1998/04/25
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: The leaders of the National Academy of Sciences have shown increasing
: tendencies to join bandwagons, and their past president has annoyed
: them on many occasions.

  They won't join yours McCarthy.  They have more sense than that.

  Are you wearing your ear flaps?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Scott Nudds  
View profile  
 More options Apr 25 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 1998/04/25
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

Harold Lindaberry (harl...@epix.net) wrote:

:     The only comment I care to make about the ECOFREAK the approach to science
: is that their motto  is ( Don't confuse them with facts DAZZLE  them with BULL
: SHIT and of course rhetoric )

  How would Lindaberry know?  With every post he proves that like
virtually all other conservative bozo's he can't distinguish between knee
deep conservatve bullshit and fact.

  Meanwhile the globe continues to warm.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Harold Lindaberry  
View profile  
 More options Apr 26 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Harold Lindaberry <harl...@epix.net>
Date: 1998/04/26
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

Scott Nudds wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry (harl...@epix.net) wrote:
> :     The only comment I care to make about the ECOFREAK the approach to science
> : is that their motto  is ( Don't confuse them with facts DAZZLE  them with BULL
> : SHIT and of course rhetoric )

>   How would Lindaberry know?  With every post he proves that like
> virtually all other conservative bozo's he can't distinguish between knee
> deep conservatve bullshit and fact.

>   Meanwhile the globe continues to warm.

    Maybe so maybe not depending on who you listen to. What influence man has in
this process is up for grabs. We are currently between ice ages that have been going
on for eons. If you think we are going to stop the next one I think you are kidding
yourself with the idea that man controls the climate. Man might in a micro way have
a slight impact but forces other than man will determine which way it goes.

    Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http:www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Scott Nudds  
View profile  
 More options Apr 28 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 1998/04/28
Subject: Re: Global Warming Petition Project

: Scott Nudds wrote:

: >   Meanwhile the globe continues to warm.

Harold Lindaberry (harl...@epix.net) wrote:

:     Maybe so maybe not depending on who you listen to.

 This is true.  Liars often claim that the globe is not warming.

 Measurement tells scientists otherwise.

        Global Average Temp over time
        -----------------------------

15.2|  TEMP = Hansen Temperature Index   ..
    |                                   .
    |                                   .
    |                                 ..
    |                    ....         .
  ^ |                  ..    .....   .
  | |                ..           ...
  T |               ..
  E |              ..
  M |             .
  P |      ....  .
    |     ..   ..
    | ..  .
14.6|  ...              1940     1970
    |-|-------------------|--------|------|--
     1872            Year ->             1994


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »