Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 29 Nov 2009 10:05 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:49:13 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: [...] >>> There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation >>> (in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the >>> distribution over the year may. >>> >>> For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain >>> is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt. >>> Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an >>> annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation >>> (which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California >>> transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude, >>> similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will >>> have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million >>> people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply >>> during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in >>> Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost >>> 50% of the mass balance at Mt. Hood, for example, and expect to see it >>> reach zero in the late summertime perhaps in 30 years or so if the >>> current rate remains unchanged. The reasons why these mountains are >>> losing them faster than some areas is largely understood -- they are >>> neither insulated by lots of rock, nor highly reflective by being >>> completely free of rock; instead, they have the right mix of loose >>> gravel and dirt on them for higher melt rates. We've had a few unique >>> _slides_ that took out important roadways in the last few years, as >>> well. (As you can see, I can cherry-pick data, too. ;) >>> >> I am not disputing that. As I wrote in my reply to Bill, there are >> glaciers in Europe that are going almost totally bare. What the >> warmingists don't seem to grasp or sometimes deny tooth and nail is that >> this is quite normal. > > I don't buy this, at all. Sorry. > > Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in > abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc. > > None of this means these are directions we want to head. ... I do, because I do not like winters :-) > ... Nor does it > say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence > today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that > contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of > recent rates. > You are right. But there is also no proof that humans do. > You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of > science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to > put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive > exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their > business. > > You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position > to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a > little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in > this case, I do. It's as basic as that. > Ok, I accept your opinion. But on the same token I have not been convinced that this is not normal. I would have hoped that there'd be some link about that increased hydrologic cycle, like an article from reputable scientists and none that use "tricks". > Here's some quotes from last week's report: > > "Has global warming recently slowed down or paused? > > "No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the > human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature > changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of > ~0.2 �C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term > variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been � and will > always be � present in the climate system. Most of these short-term > variations are due to internal oscillations like El Ni�o � Southern > Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe > cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause > a cooling lasting a few years). > See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not. > "If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term > variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming > trend. For example, El Ni�o events typically come with global-mean > temperature changes of up to 0.2 �C over a few years, and the solar > cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 �C over five years (Lean and Rind > 2008). However, neither El Ni�o, nor solar activity or volcanic > eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate > trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest > trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this > time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected > anthropogenic warming. > > "Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten > years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in > some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year > trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between > 0.17 and 0.34 �C warming per decade, close to or above the expected > anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to > 0.19 �C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller > warming trends (0.11 �C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the > fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic, > which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years. > Better get in line for the coming winter clothes sales :-) http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/hadcrut-jan08.png [ snipped the IPCC article quote] Jon, I assume you know by know that I (and a lot of other) don't give much of a hoot what the IPCC writes. Let alone believe it. > >> A few thousand years ago they wear also iceless or >> nearly iceless, as evidence by the findings of ancient weaponry, shoes, >> coins, and the typical litter that unfortunately always happens along >> major thoroughfares. They must have lacked an "Adopt-a-Highway" program >> back then ;-) >> >> Since they found Roman coins there the last warm period without ice on >> the glacier cannot have been be that long ago: >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm >> >> >>> That aside, some places, due to the increased cycle will experience >>> increases and some decreases. The total global precipitation will >>> slightly increase. >>> >>> From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, recently released: >>> >>> "Post IPCC AR4 research has also found that rains become >>> more intense in already-rainy areas as atmospheric water vapor >>> content increases (Pall et al. 2007; Wentz et al. 2007; Allan >>> and Soden 2008). These conclusions strengthen those of earlier >>> studies and are expected from considerations of atmospheric >>> thermodynamics. However, recent changes have occurred faster >>> than predicted by some climate models, raising the possibility >>> that future changes will be more severe than predicted. >>> >>> "... >>> >>> "In addition to the increases in heavy precipitation, there have >>> also been observed increases in drought since the 1970s >>> (Sheffield and Wood 2008), consistent with the decreases in >>> mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands that have >>> been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Zhang et al. >>> 2007). >>> >>> "The intensification of the global hydrological cycle with >>> anthropogenic climate change is expected to lead to further >>> increases in precipitation extremes, both increases in very >>> heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry >>> areas. While precise figures cannot yet be given, current studies >>> suggest that heavy precipitation rates may increase by 5% - 10% >>> per �C of warming, similar to the rate of increase of atmospheric >>> water vapor." >>> See above: cannot be proven, current studies suggest. All assumptions. >>> On a separate topic, I thought you might be interested in the GLIMS >>> numbers for the glaciers on Mt. Shasta: >>> >>> (Unnamed, I think) G237813E41427N 1950-07-01 58849 >>> G237815E41410N 1950-07-01 58850 >>> Konwakiton Glacier G237805E41400N 1950-07-01 58851 >>> Watkins Glacier G237821E41403N 1950-07-01 58852 >>> Whitney Glacier G237787E41415N 1950-07-01 58853 >>> G237804E41420N 1950-07-01 58854 >>> Bolam Glacier G237799E41421N 1950-07-01 58855 >>> G237803E41424N 1950-07-01 58856 >>> G237813E41422N 1950-07-01 58857 >>> Hotlum Glacier G237814E41418N 1950-07-01 58858 >>> G237818E41416N 1950-07-01 58859 >>> >>> You can use those to secure data on those from the GLIMS dataset. Not >>> that it probably matters. But there it is because I wasted my time >>> looking for them. Oh, well. >> Thanks, but right now I have to first find some inductors for an EMI >> case :-) > > hehe. Well, I wasted my time already. So there. > All I got there was "view database", didn't go to a database. Then "view catalog", and only the name of scientists came up. What does it say? That the Shasta glaciers shrink? No pun intended but so far this discussio took the usual route of deviation: a. Notion that a particular glacier grows. b. Answer that this is due to increased precipitation. c. I bring link where the precip data is in there since 1948, such trend not obvious at all. d. Deviation to other things, no proof that my assumption "c" is clearly wrong (and it might be). >>>>>> Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see >>>>>> drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted >>>>>> we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising, >>>>>> for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer. >>>>>> We would never again buy a house with a pool around here. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of >>>>>> engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head. >>>>>> Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes >>>>>> in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear >>>>> >from the people. Meaning voters :-) >>>>> >>>>> None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages >>>>> and I think you _know_ this. >>>>> >>>>> If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4 >>>>> volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out >>>>> a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was >>>>> being disingenuous. And you'd be right. >>>> And that 8V spike could be the root cause why a chip always fails so >>>> you'd have made a valid and concerning observation :-) >>> Not the point when talking about averages, is it? >>> >>>>> If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read: >>>>> >>>>> http://nsidc.org/glims/ >>>>> >>>>> However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary >>>>> of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had >>>>> from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance >>>>> measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50, >>>>> 96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it. >>>> I know that most glaciers are receding for a while now. >>> Accepted. >>> >>>> That has >>>> happened in the past as well, and then they grew again. What I harbor >>>> doubts about is that this is human-caused. These doubt haven't exactly >>>> been reduced after the revelations of emails lately. >>> Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In >>> many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in >>> the world is 100% due to humans. ;) >> True. But the question is whether it's 90%, 50%, or maybe only 2%. That >> where warmingists are often making shaky assumptions. > > Of course that's an important question. It's been answered, to a > sufficient degree to be useful. > I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email revelations. >>>> As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther >>>> than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there >>>> has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that >>>> are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient >>>> truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there >>>> in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and >>>> artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them :-) >>> Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few >>> and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me >>> to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can >>> track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested >>> in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point, >>> I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious >>> criticism. >> Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old >> Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He >> was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then >>from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there. >> [...] > > In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a > comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as > far as my taking your opinion on any of this. > > My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one > masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point > you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write, > but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are > willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it -- > and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out > where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny > corner of things.... > All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven. > Well, why should I care, then? > > Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you > don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about > it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about > your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this > subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.) > Just like nearly all other people, I have to rely on work by scientists because I either can't do it, don't want to do it or simply don't have the time to do it. It is the same in business where micro-management spells doom. You have to trust others or you go under together with the whole company. Because you haven't done it all by yourself does not mean you can't have and voice an opinion. When looking at the behavior of a substantial number of climate scientists over the last few years I found lots of red flags. The latest emails are by far the biggest. IMHO a respectable scientists never ever thinks that way, let alone write it. I find that highly unprofessional and it has now thoroughly undermined whatever trust was left for me in their scientific "evidence". Sorry, but that's the way I see it. What I do not want is hip-shot actions such as CO2 taxes or dangerous and untested stuff like CO2 sequestration underneath areas where people live, all based on science that I now highly question. And believe me, I am not alone, the number of people around here that believe the IPCC has dwindled drastically. What is much more important for me is what each and every one of us is _personally_ doing to reduce their carbon, smog and other footprints. I am ready to go to the mat about that at any time. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 11:27 On Nov 29, 5:53 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 28, 3:58 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> >> >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= > >> >> >> >, > >> >> >> >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). > >> >> >> >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= > >> >> >> >re would be no civilisation > >> >> >> >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= > >> >> >> >ufacturers have their own power plants. > > >> >> >> >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these > >> >> >> >nice things will go away again. > > >> >> >> >> Been there. > >> >> >> >> Now wake up from your green dreams. > > >> >> >> >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know > >> >> >> >what he is talking about. > > >> >> >> mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? > > >> >> >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who > >> >> >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite > >> >> >often post total nonsense. > > >> >> --- > >> >> Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field > >> >> surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? > > >> >Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that. > > >> --- > >> He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you > >> wretch. > > >> But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_ > >> my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone > >> who cared to replicate the experiment to do so. > > >Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother. > > You really are no scientist are you? And I'd suddenly become a "scientist" if I started wasting my time on experiments that told me nothing I didn't already know, about a subject in which I wasn't interested? If you want to waste your time playing silly games, nobody is going to stand in your way - in so far as it keeps you out of our hair, I'd actively welcome it. Getting other people to take you seriously is rather more demanding. <snipped the rest of the tantrum> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 29 Nov 2009 11:44 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful >> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that >> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. > >That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working >on it. But you used mosfets. John
From: Joerg on 29 Nov 2009 12:10 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>> On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther >>>>>>>> than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there >>>>>>>> has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that >>>>>>>> are now under a thick layer of ice. > > Except that they aren't. > > And neither the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were > particularly dramatic temperature excursions. Denialists do claim that > the existence of these small and local excursions proves that the > warming that we are seeing at the moment isn't anthropogenic, but the > logic doesn't really hold up. > > To make the argument work you have to claim - and prove - that CO2 > isn't a greenhouse gas, or that the measured concentrations in the > atmosphere aren't higher than they have been for 650,000 years (as > recorded in the ice core data) and probably for the last 20 million > years (if you trust the geological data). > No, warmingists have to prove that CO2 _is_ causing trouble for us. > Worrying about the exact fate of Viking settlement is a rather foolish > distraction, though your claim that the former settlements are now > under a thick layer of ice - when most of them aren't and never have > been - does sugggest that you aren't too careful with your facts, nor > presumably are you all that careful about where you get them. > No, it means that you didn't even look at my links. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 29 Nov 2009 12:21
Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>> On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>>>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... >>>>>>>>>> " The other paper by MM is just garbage � as you knew. De Freitas >>>>>>>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to >>>>>>>>>> the mad Finn as well � frequently as I see it. I can�t see either of >>>>>>>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out >>>>>>>>>> somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature >>>>>>>>>> is ! " >>>>>>>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think >>>>>>>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational >>>>>>>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? >>>>>>>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? >>>>>>> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting >>>>>>> the scientific method. >>>>>> Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep >>>>>> them out somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review >>>>>> literature is ! " >>>>>> If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any >>>>>> and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least >>>>>> in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers). >>>>> There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been >>>>> known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without >>>>> sending it out for review. >>>> Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review >>>> literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there. >>>>> As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo- >>>>> academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty >>>>> relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil >>>>> and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying >>>>> anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter >>>>> definitions are desirable. >>>> Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW >>>> scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least >>>> that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking. >>> With a lot of help from denialist propaganda. It is a bit odd that the >>> denialist propaganda machine hasn't got reports of IPCC members >>> driving around in Lamborginis while living in the lap of luxury. If >>> they had traded their academic integrity for a mess of pottage you'd >>> expect other academics in related fields to have noticed some change >>> in their life-style. >>> Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake. >> All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living >> green. Yeah, right. > > He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even > though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992. > A preacher that doesn't live by his teachings? We oughta, coulda, shoulda, but not me? >>> Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which >>> provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories >>> with which Ravinghorde regales us. >> Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar >> to those embarrassing email? > > This is the usual reference > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business > > which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil > So? Quote "In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change" That is propaganda in my eyes. If the IPCC says that others "misrepresent" the science that doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. At least not right now. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial > Quote "... sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work'" Remember the recently leaked emails? If that isn't enough proof of "resistant to reasonable criticism" of scientists to you then I can't help you. > is more comprehensive, and > > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html > > points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned > Scientists (UCS). > Ah yes, the usual witch hunt. By a "union of concerned scientists". I've asked for _proof_ where Exxon _fudged_ science. Sorry, but you did not deliver that. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |