Over 400 Prominent Scientists Say Gore and UN IPCC Are Full Of Hot Air
JanO...@aol.com
(also see other links in this article)
~Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
~Climate Skeptics Expanding Rather Than Shrinking
~Many Scientists held back from reporting their skeptisism
~Skeptical Scientists Have Faced Threats and Intimidation
http://tinyurl.com/34a5f8
WHAT Global Warming Scientific Consensus?
The word "consensus" is not a scientific term.
Jan Eric Orme
"The Sky Is Not Falling"
Ouroboros_Rex
<JanO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0e058d0e-cbd3-42c1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/2hmrer
LOL Lying Inhofe and his band of denialists strike again!
> (also see other links in this article)
>
> ~Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
> ~Climate Skeptics Expanding Rather Than Shrinking
> ~Many Scientists held back from reporting their skeptisism
> ~Skeptical Scientists Have Faced Threats and Intimidation
> http://tinyurl.com/34a5f8
ROFLMAO
Extra points for:
Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor
(February 8, 2007)
Excerpt: "[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human
activities are the main cause of global climate change.So the [Oregon]
governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he
would appoint.
(Except that he's not really the state climatologist. lol)
Hugh G. Rection
"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:fkecnv$trn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
George H. Taylor is the State Climatologist for Oregon, and a faculty member
at Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. He
manages the Oregon Climate Service, the state repository of weather and
climate information, and supervises a staff of ten.
Mr. Taylor is past president of the American Association of State
Climatologists. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and
has received certification as a Certified Consulting Meteorologist by the
Society. He also has a California Lifetime Community College Credential. He
has published over 200 reports, symposium articles, and journal articles.
Prior to joining Oregon State University in 1989, Mr. Taylor operated his
own consulting business in Santa Barbara, California. Previously he was
employed as a meteorologist by North American Weather Consultants and
Environmental Research and Technology.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Hugh G. Rection" <1...@2.com> wrote in message
news:476ab7db$0$513$815e...@news.qwest.net...
Yes, we know they call him a state climatologist. Now check out who gave
him the title. Hint: it ain't the state. =)
Hugh G. Rection
Ah! More word games from Gore - o - bore - us.
Ouroboros_Rex
As usual, the denialist has nothing.
steve
> "Hugh G. Rection" <1...@2.com> wrote in messagenews:476abd2d$0$507$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> >news:fkee7a$ud1$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
> >> "Hugh G. Rection" <1...@2.com> wrote in message
> >>news:476ab7db$0$513$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
> >> > "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:fkecnv$trn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
right all the scientists in this report
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
are nothing.
Ouroboros_Rex
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5373f8fa-ef09-4dde...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That's essentially correct.
Tom Gardner
<snip>
> That's essentially correct.
Your scam is exposed, run!
Ouroboros_Rex
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uyBaj.84238$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
O NOES, sad sick serial liar Tom Gardner says something!
steve
> > right all the scientists in this report
> >http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
> > are nothing.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
right, it all a rightwing conspiracy. get a life leftard dipshit.
your scientists mean nothing compared to mine.
Former California State Climatologist Jim Goodridge, a consultant
for the California Department of Water Resources, authored a July 28,
2007 paper noting the impact of the sun on climate change. "Evidence
for climate variation is inferred from the sunspot numbers. The
'Solar
Constant' sunspot relationship clearly suggests a long-range historic
view of solar irradiance from 1500. The solar irradiance has been
clearly increasing since 1940. The Maunder Minimum of sunspot numbers
from 1660 to 1710 was clearly a time of worldwide cold temperatures.
The year 1816 was known as the year without a summer," Goodridge
wrote. Goodridge also blamed natural factors for the increase in
temperatures in California since the 1970s. "The evidence for a major
climate shift since the mid 1970s is quite real. California indices
of
rainfall and temperature have both shown an increasing trend since
1975. Physical changes in Earth weather systems that accompany the
1975 weather trend changes include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
(PDO) index, a 1975 change in the Atmospheric Angular Momentum (AAM)
index and a 1940 increase in solar irradiance," he explained. "A
comparison of the accumulated departure from average of the
California
temperature and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index (PDO) indices
indicate both peaking about 1943 and generally declining until the
major climate shift of 1975. Again, this suggests a 35-year lag time
in solar influence," he added
A 2006 study of Greenland by a team of scientists debunked fears of
Greenland melting. The study led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos
National
Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of
warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005,
suggesting carbon dioxide 'could not be the cause' of warming. (LINK)
"We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in
recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming
periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however
the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in
1995-2005," the abstract of the study read. The peer-reviewed study,
which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research
Letters,
found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland,
"the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below
temperatures reached in the 1930s and 1940s." The study further
continued, "Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland
stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature
average." In addition, the Chylek-led study explained, "Although
there
has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade
(1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred
during
the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide
or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland
warming
of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period
of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase
seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A
general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since
1990s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface
temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001]." "To
summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the
Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by
increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide." The co-
authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National
Laboratory
and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada. Chylek has authored
over 100 studies in peer-reviewed journals. Chylek was one of the 60
scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of
Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated, "If,
back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate,
Kyoto
would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it
was not necessary."
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather
Satellite Service, past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere and global warming co-author of
the
2006 book: (LINK) Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years
details the solar-climate link using hundreds of studies from peer
reviewed literature and "shows the earth's temperatures following
variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records,
and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings."
Singer
explained on February 14, 2007, "Good evidence confirms that current
warming is mostly part of a natural climate cycle, most likely driven
by the sun. The available data show that the human contribution from
greenhouse gases is not detectable and must be insignificant. It is a
non-problem. Trying to mitigate a natural warming (or cooling) is
futile and a big waste of money better spent on real societal
problems."
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Fred Michel, Director of the Institute of
Environmental Science and Associate Professor of the Department of
Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Canada, rejected global
warming fears. "Climate hysteria has been known to be a sham all
along," Michel told EPW on May 16, 2007. "As someone who has worked
in
the arctic on topics such as permafrost, groundwater, and Quaternary
glacial history, it has always been quite clear that the climate is
constantly changing and that natural processes are able to produce
very large changes over very short time periods," wrote Michel, who
has worked with the International Energy Agency. We need "to return
our focus to the important issues that need to be addressed, which
includes being aware of the effects of a changing climate whether it
be warmer or colder," he added.
Iowa State Climatologist Dr. Elwynn Taylor, Professor of Meteorology
at Iowa State University and a former project scientist with the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, expressed skepticism
of
man-made climate fears. An August 2007 article reported that "while
Taylor believes entirely in global warming, he hasn't yet jumped on
the popular Inconvenient Truth bandwagon. 'I don't know how much
people have caused,' he says. 'Nobody really knows ... but what I do
know is that we had a global cooling period from around the middle
1800s to around 1900, global warming from 1900 to around 1940, global
cooling again from 1940 to 1972, and global warming since 1972.
Thermometers have measured this for us.'" The article continued,
"Taylor accepts that global warming is occurring. But he says the
extent to which man is contributing to its acceleration is
debatable...he says the popular theories floated by the likes of Al
Gore may be slightly overcooked. 'I think people are exaggerating the
idea that all of the temperature change occurring on Earth is being
caused by this,' he says. 'They shouldn't be saying that. Because
pretty soon we could discover that these things are only partially
true. And then people, feeling misled, won't do anything.'" The
article added, "Taylor is reluctant to blame human activity-
specifically, increased emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon
dioxide-for [global warming's] apparent acceleration? Because the
bigger picture tells him there are more powerful cycles at play. He
justifies his pragmatic position with convincing anecdotal evidence
from the story he tells about Greenland's super-thick ice cap
starting
to melt back and revealing that humans inhabited the place 1,400
years
ago. 'You could have taken your ship across the North Pole late in
the
summer then, too,' he says. 'So what we've discovered is there have
been occasions throughout history when sea ice in the North Pole
would
go away during certain times of the year and other spans of history
where the ice was essentially permanent. These things go back and
forth. We wonder now if there was ever a time when there was no
glacier on top of Greenland at all. Geologists say yes-a short 3
million years ago we didn't have any permanent year-round ice on the
planet. These things come and go in natural cycles.'"
Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks is an Associate Professor of
Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia
whose research has focused flood and drought risk and seasonal
climate
prediction. A March 17, 2007 article in The Australian newspaper
explained Franks' climate views. Franks "is increasingly uneasy about
the dangerous path the debate is taking, where alternative views are
discouraged and reputations attacked and discredited. Franks says our
understanding of the physics of climate is still so limited, we
cannot
explain natural variability or predict when droughts will break, or
the when and why clouds form, which makes him wary of mainstream
claims projecting temperature changes over the next century. He
argues
that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere account for only about 2 per
cent to 3 per cent of the overall warming effect, meaning even major
increases in gases lead to only slight shifts in temperature: between
0.5C and 1C. He is less certain than other dissenting scientists that
variation in solar activity is the cause, but doubts that greenhouse
gases are the main driver of temperature changes," the article
stated.
"It's clear that we don't understand enough of the physics of climate
to understand natural variability but I don't expect climate change
from CO2 to be particularly significant at any point in the future,"
Franks said. The article continued, "Franks points to new modeling
which has measured changes in the Earth's albedo, or reflectance,
driven mainly by cloud formation. The paper by a team of
geophysicists
reported an unexplained decline in cloud cover until 1998, which
caused the Earth to absorb more heat from the atmosphere. This
resulted in increases in incoming solar radiation more than 10 times
bigger than the same effect attributed to greenhouse gases. Franks
says the current IPCC models assume albedo is constant but such
research should be added to the body of knowledge, not excluded or
rejected. 'It's reached the point that anyone who offers an open mind
publicly is basically criticized and put down,' he says." (LINK)
Franks also wrote a June 2007 paper titled "Multi-decadal Climate
Variability: Flood and Drought - New South Wales" in which he
concluded that "strong evidence of multi-decadal climate variability"
has dominated the climate. "Climate has never been static!" Franks
wrote. "Current drought cannot be directly linked to 'climate
change'"
and "El Niño/La Niña variability [is] due to natural processes,"
Franks wrote
UK atmospheric scientist John Kettley, formerly of the Met Office and
the Fluid Dynamics Department at the Bracknell headquarters,
dismissed
the linkage of wild weather in the summer of 2007 in England to
global
warming. "In my view, none of the severe weather we have experienced
is proof of 'climate change.' It is just a poor summer - nothing
more,
nothing less - something that was the norm throughout most of the
Sixties and has been repeated on several occasions more recently,"
Kettley, a former meteorologist with the BBC, wrote in an op-ed on
July 22, 2007 titled "Global Warming? No, Just an Old-Style British
Summer." "To many, the black skies and fierce rains must have seemed
an ominous portent of things to come: symptomatic of the
environmental
ravages of global warming. But, however extreme the weather we have
experienced over the past few days, its significance in
meteorological
terms is likely to be more prosaic. This year's apparently
extraordinary weather is no more sinister than a typical British
summer of old and a reminder of why Mediterranean holidays first
became so attractive to us more than 40 years ago," Kettley wrote.
"Going further back, history also shows that 1912 was an atrocious
summer. It was so bad, in fact, that we are still some way short of
the torrential downpours that happened that year. It seemed
particularly bad at the time because 1911 had been such an
exceptionally good summer. So, taking a long view, there is a pattern
of warming and cooling. The Edwardians were experiencing a period of
significant warming (much like now) following a cold Victorian spell.
There was a period of warming from the Twenties through to the end of
the Fifties and, after a cooler period, there has been a further
significant warming over the past 20 years," he added. "In the final
analysis, this summer may be just such a 'blip' in the charts," he
concluded.
Retired Air Force atmospheric scientist Dr. Edward F Blick, Professor
of Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma, rejected
man-
made climate fears in 2007. "Is their any solid evidence the earth is
warming due to man's use of fossil fuels transferring excessive
amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere? The answer is NO!" Blick wrote on
June 17, 2007 in an article titled "The Religions of Global Warming."
"The amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere each year is
about 3 billion tons per year. But this is insignificant compared to
the 39,000 billion tons in our oceans, 2,200 billion tons in our
vegetation and soils, and 750 billion tons in our atmosphere. Much of
the CO2 generated by man is consumed by vegetation," Blick explained.
"Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people
in
his vain attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel
that we use," Blick added. He also questioned the accuracy of
temperature gathering. "At the time of the collapse of the Soviet
Union (around 1990), they could not afford their weather stations in
Siberia, so they were closed. Hence, with the loss of the cooler
temperature data from Siberia and rural stations in other countries,
coupled with the heat island effects of the large city stations, and
errors in thermometers of the 1800's, any increase in the average
earth temperature in the past may be an illusion," he wrote. "CO2 is
not poison and it is not our enemy. CO2 and oxygen are the twin gases
of life. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants
breathe in CO2, make carbohydrates, and breathe out oxygen. We feed
the plants and they feed us"
Geologist Brian R. Pratt, a professor in the Department of Geological
Sciences at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, is an award-
winning sedimentologist and paleontologist who specializes in earth's
environmental history in Deep Time. Pratt is also a skeptic of
climate
change fears. "I have reviewed the observational evidence of climate
change which leads me to interpret climate fluctuations and weather
patterns as natural phenomena not caused by anthropogenic
activities,"
Pratt told EPW on November 27, 2007. "I am very concerned that
Earth's
physical, chemical and biological processes are being widely
misunderstood by the public, by politicians and even by many
scientists. Consequently, 'stopping' global warming has been adopted
as a mission by people with the power to cause severe economic harm
and divert efforts away from more critical measures involving
conservation, population growth, poverty and so forth," he wrote
Atmospheric scientist H. Michael Mogil, a 30-year veteran of NOAA
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), who is certified
by
the American Metrological Society and currently owns the "How the
Weatherworks" consulting firm, questioned man-made global warming
fears in 2007. "As a certified consulting meteorologist who has
written extensively about weather, I am compelled to address the
spate
of stories that appear almost daily promoting climate fears," Mogil,
who holds a masters degree in Meteorology, wrote in a commentary
published on October 27, 2007 in the Napa Valley Register titled
"Earth is Warming, but it's Not Our Fault." "Long-term climate
studies
show that the Earth goes through large- and small-scale weather and
climate patterns. These are based on solar energy output and solar
flare activity, wobbles of the Earth's rotation, changes in land
locations (plate tectonics or continental drift, depending upon your
age when the subject was taught), periodic melting and reformation of
glaciers and much more. Humans are clearly affecting some of these
typical variations, but we are not their cause," Mogil explained.
"While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al
Gore claim that humans are almost certainly the cause of the changes,
I disagree. The warming began as the last ice age waned some 500
years
ago, not as humans started to industrialize," he wrote. "I'm not sure
why so many of my meteorological colleagues who have similar feelings
have not spoken up. Perhaps it is because the news media is
presenting
mostly a one-sided approach to the topic. So, in my new book, Extreme
Weather, coming in November [2007], and in letters like this, I'm
pushing for a more scientific examination of the evidence and a more
balanced perspective," he concluded
Climate scientist Dr. Dick Morgan, former director of Canada's Met/
Oceano Policy and Plans, a marine meteorologist and a climate
researcher at both Exeter University and the Bedford Institute of
Oceanography, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "I have had
over 65 years of global climatic experience in every ocean of the
world and am convinced that solar variability is the major component
of climate change. It influences the global thermohaline circulation
and the quasi-permanent pressure oscillations which export polar air
towards the ITF via the Trade Winds. Hence, seasonal Monsoons,
Tropical Storms and ENSO generation," Morgan, a former associate of
the British Antarctic Survey Group at Cambridge, wrote to EPW on
November 18, 2007. "The Major GHGs (greenhouse gases) are water
vapour
and ozone -- the latter being more important than CO2 in fossil fuel
emissions because of its effect upon aerosols which determine cloud
albedo and chemistry. Having been a forecaster at an airfield in
Glasgow, during the coal burning period, I can vouch for that
statement empirically," Morgan explained. "CO2 warming is not
entirely
detrimental because of its feedback as a catalyst for the greening of
the terrestrial surface as its own sink in forestry, food production
and grazing crops for animals. Its attributes and detriments are
probably near balanced," he wrote. "As there is a perfect correlation
between population growth and CO2, the major objective of Kyoto
should
be population control, otherwise it is simply pissing against the
wind," he added. "As the IPCC does not have an adequate
representation
of oceanographers and solar scientists in its WG1 (Working Group 1)
and [IPCC] Panel, it is not representative of the total scientific
forum of experts in climate change integers, Centers of expertise in
oceanography are almost unanimously advising that if IPCC models are
right then the Gulf Stream will fail and scientists in highly
reputable solar research centers are anticipating 60 years of solar
quiescence are imminent. The IPCC are not advising the public of
these
alternative theses which advocate cooling -- countering anthropogenic
warming," he concluded
Climate scientist Dr. David Douglass of the University of Rochester
refuted the entire basis for man-made climate fears in 2007. Douglass
co-authored a December 2007 peer-reviewed paper published in the
International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological
Society which found the evidence for human influence for warming
temperatures lacking in the atmosphere. "The observed pattern of
warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends does
not
show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse
warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is
not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate
warming," said Douglass, the paper's lead author on December 10,
2007.
The paper was co-authored with Physicist S. Fred Singer,
Climatologist
Dr. John Christy and Benjamin D. Pearson
.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the
University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of
pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a skeptic of man-
made
global warming fears. "10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000
feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And
then
over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today's climate
and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive
theory about why that happened," Walcek said according to a November
6, 2007 article. (LINK) In a separate May 5, 2007 interview, Walcek
expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President
Al Gore of having "exaggerated" part of his film. "A lot of the
imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go,
there
is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent
committee of scientists concluded that there isn't a strong
correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of
people are saying we're going to see more Katrina's and there's just
not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout
the last hundred years and we're probably going to have strong
hurricanes once in a while," Walcek said. "We are over-due for an
ice-
age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of
not
having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany" New York, he
added.
Chief Meteorologist Karl Spring of Duluth, Minnesota, who is
certified
by both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather
Association, expressed skepticism of former Vice President Al Gore's
climate views. On the day Gore's Nobel Prize was announced in
October
2007, Spring declared on KUWS radio, "I wouldn't pay a dime to see
[An
Inconvenient Truth] for many reasons." Spring then ridiculed Gore.
"Politically, he's a left-wing nut. And he does things for other
agendas." He added that Gore "takes facts and extrapolates them to
such extremes," and he projects "a doomsday scenario." Meteorologist
Kyly Underwood joined Spring in dismissing Gore's scientific opinions
during on KUWS radio. "We need to be careful about where we get our
information on global warming, and this debate unfortunately is
driven
by politicians."
Bill Habr
<JanO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0e058d0e-cbd3-42c1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Senate MINORITY report
It is the quality not quantity that counts
Tim Murphy
<JanO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0e058d0e-cbd3-42c1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Lone Ranger
>WHAT Global Warming Scientific Consensus?
>The word "consensus" is not a scientific term.
You need to educate yourself. In its strongest form, the term
consensus is used to assert that on a given question scientists within
a particular field of science have reached an agreement of rational
opinion without substantial doubt, through a process of
experimentation and peer review.
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion
of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a
particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific
argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the
content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific
arguments and the scientific method.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences,
the process of publication, and peer review. These lead to a situation
where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus
where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult.
On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended
to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the
"outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the
subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite
straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or
political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public
sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific
community, such as evolution or climate change.
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
Tunderbar
> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fkecnv$trn$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
He sounds pretty damned qualified to express a professional opinion on
the subject and be respected for for it.