Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:08:04 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar <chimbel...@yahoo.com>
The misconceptions like the ones in the post below regarding the science of global warming have been addressed by many reputed and responsible scientific organizations, all of whom are in full agreement about the scientific issues involved. Mario responds: This is a false representation of my post http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-February/174402.html. I did not even address "the science of global warming" as Santosh falsely alleges. If he had read my post he would have known that. If I had addressed the science of global warming I may have said something like, "I find it totally ludicrous that anyone can seriously claim that CO2, which is about 0.036% of the total earth's atmosphere, can trap anything as nebulous as heat on a worldwide basis." However, I did not say that or anything even resembling an opinion on "the science of global warming", though I did mention in passing a twenty year period, 1940 to 1980, when there was no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. But that was just my non-scientific observation, and what do I know? The conclusion I did express, based on the evidence in the source I cited and which has been completely ignored by Santosh, was, and I quote: "The only point to be made here is that there are a significant number of scientists who are not yet convinced that the matter is "settled" and that the broad "consensus" being claimed by some, does not yet exist." Santosh, while totally ignoring what I said as if those other scientists do not exist, has cited more organizations that agree with him, which then enables him to say that they "are in full agreement about the scientific issues involved". Of course they are. They represent one side of the debate. Santosh and others are free to join them. However, what I find strange is Santosh's ability to deny that there is a debate going on, and totally ignore the evidence that there are hundreds, if not thousands of reputable and respected scientists that disagree with the scientific opinions of the organizations cited by him.
