The problem with the post below again is that it does not cite any original scientific source. The only sources it cites are political and ideological in nature. They are:
"http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8"; and "http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf"; The first is a Republican senator's blog, and the second a document provided by a socio-economic policy institute whose mission is clarified in the following statement: "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." Now whom would you trust on the subject of climate science? The work of the majority of world's climate scientists and the science academies of their countries or a U.S. senator and some sociologists and economists of a public policy institute? The fact that the material from the latter political and ideological sources cannot be trusted is clear from the following post which quotes excerpts that misrepresent the work of Stephen Schwartz, and rely on casual sound bites of an astronomer and a solar physicist from sensational websites and news items rather than the published work of climate scientists in mainstream scientific journals. Please see below the Brookhaven National Laboratory website of Stephen Schwartz to find out that he accepts the evidence indicating human involvement in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html On another front the speculative claim of a solar physicist that the sun's activity is responsible for global warming has now been refuted by a number of studies. Please`see for instance the following peer-reviewed scientific paper from Stanford University: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full Here is the relevant excerpt: "Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 3/2/09, Mario Goveia <mgov...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ................. > According to, > http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf, the > vast majority of the scientists who contribute to the IPCC > studies have no direct influence on the conclusions > expressed by the IPCC. > .............................. > http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 > ................................... > “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the > dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing > the new study which has been accepted for publication in the > Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the > peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the > climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President > Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, > and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored > by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. See, > http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf >.......................................... > These assertions are debatable according to Solar physicist > Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre > in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed > scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with > the Earth. >
