Claims of IPCC'S *magic* 2100 signatures

A. C. Szul mack97 at EROLS.COM
Wed Oct 29 21:28:18 MST 1997


IPCC'S *magic* 2100 signatures:
"...The great majority of these are not conversant with the intricacies
of atmospheric physics, although some may know a lot about forestry,
fisheries or agriculture..."
Hmmmmmm.....

"..Even some IPCC climate scientists,in the report itself or in a May 16
Science article headlined'Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy,' have
expressed doubts about the validity of computer models and about the
main IPCC conclusion..."
Hmmmmmm...

Read on below...

-A
http://www.erols.com/mack97
"It all starts at home." - anonymous
--------------------->snip>-----------------------------------------

"....S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental
sciences at the University of Virginia, wrote in
the July 25 Wall Street Journal:

                   "If one were to add up all the
                   contributors and reviewers listedin the
                   three IPCC reports published in 1996, one
                   would count about2,100. The great
                   majority of these are not conversant with
                   theintricacies of atmospheric physics,
                   although some may know a lotabout
                   forestry, fisheries or agriculture. Most
                   are socialscientists -- or just policy
                   experts and government
                   functionaries.Every country seems to be
                   represented -- from Albania to Zimbabwe--
                   though many are not exactly at the
                   forefront of research. Thelist even
                   includes known skeptics of global warming
                   -- much totheir personal and professional
                   chagrin."

                  According to Dr. Singer,

                   "Even some IPCC climate scientists,in the
                   report itself or in a May 16 Science
                   article headlined'Greenhouse Forecasting
                   Still Cloudy,' have expressed doubts
                   aboutthe validity of computer models and
                   about the main IPCCconclusion, that 'the
                   balance of evidence suggests a
                   discerniblehuman influence on global
                   climate' -- whatever that ambiguousphrase
                   may mean."

                  He also pointed out that most of the warming
              over the past hundred years occurred before 1940,
              even though there were more carbon dioxide
              emissions after World War II, and that "weather
              satellite observations, independently backed by
              data from balloon- borne source sensors, have shown
              no global warming whatsoever in the past 20 years."

                  To read Singer's piece, go to the Science &
              Environmental Policy Project site:
              http://www.his.com/~sepp/ To go right to the
              article, add: glwarm/hotair.html (Note this is also
              in freerepublic)

                  Unfortunately, such skepticism isn't allowed in
              network journalism.

                  Some other good sites with the facts on global
              warming:

                  # The National Center for Policy Analysis has a
              very good piece titled "Myths of Global Warming."
              Among the myths destroyed, the one that Jennings
              passed along about the "majority" of scientists. In
              fact: "A Gallup Poll found that only 17 percent of
              the members of the Meteorological Society and the
              American Geophysical Society think that the warming
              of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse
              gas emissions."
              http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/gwhot.html

                  # The Competitive Enterprise Institute page has
              reaction to Clinton's plan: http://www.cei.org

                  # The "Cooler Heads Coalition" has created a
              page with links to all the latest reports:
              http://www.globalwarming.org One item you can get
              to from there: a just released poll: "A majority of
              state climatologists say reducing man-made carbon
              dioxide emissions to 1990 levels or lower would not
              prevent warmer temperatures on Earth, according to
              a new survey commissioned by Citizens for a Sound
              Economy Foundation. That's because, according to
              those surveyed, most climatologists believe global
              warming 'is largely a natural phenomenon.'"

              And let us not forget freerepublic's
              Environmentalist Wackos
              http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/t1000315.htm
source: Media Research Center, October 28, 1997 Brent Baker
Not to be used for commercial purposes



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list