--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Mario Goveia <mgov...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> What he describes as a Republican Senator's blog does,
> in fact contain links to numerous sources of peer-reviewed
> studies written by reputable and respected scientists who
> disagree with Santosh's point of view. 
>

The above statement is false. The Republican senator's blog does not provide 
links to any peer-reviewed scientific studies at all. Almost all of the links 
are to other political blogs (such as "Climatepolice.com", many of which deny 
that global warming is taking place in the first place), and to news items in 
popular media websites, with sensational titles such as "Al Gore is a 
greenhouse gas bag".

The one apparently peer-reviewed paper (not study) it refers to is a 
biographical account of a solar physicist (who died in 2006), and a description 
of his unproven solar inertial motion hypothesis.

Please see http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

I have already shown you how the claim that the sun is responsible for global 
warming has been refuted.

The only other scientific document which the Republican senator's political 
blog refers to is the following non-peer reviewed publication of Stephen 
Schwartz:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

I have already told you how the said political blog is misleading people on the 
work of Stephen Schwartz described in the above link. Here again is the link to 
Dr. Schwartz's page on the cause of global warming:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html

Regarding the non-peer reviewed document provided by the Heartland Institute 
(http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf), the scientific 
credentials and affiliations of its contributors have not been stated. A search 
through the scientific literature shows that none of these contributors have 
published any peer-reviewed criticisms on global warming in mainstream 
scientific journals. The same is true of S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz. 
Neither of these individuals have provided any peer-reviewed scientific 
argument backed by objective evidence for their denials of any of the main 
conclusions regarding global warming in any mainstream scientific journal.

Political statements and sound bites like the ones provided in the post 
appended below do not tell us what evidence and scientific rationale these 
people have for denying peer-reviewed data and/or conclusions of climate 
scientists currently active in the global warming field, and whether their 
arguments pass scientific muster. What's more, all of the speculative arguments 
that they have made on internet blogs and websites, and in popular media and 
books have been roundly refuted by climate scientists. 

The situation in this case is nearly exactly the same as it is with the denials 
related to the theory of evolution by natural selection, and the denial of the 
fact that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.

Cheers,

Santosh

--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Mario Goveia <mgov...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> The Heartland report was compiled and edited by a scientist
> and professor of Environmental Science:
> 
> S. Fred Singer
> President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
> Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University
> Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of
> Virginia
> 
> Fred Singer writes, "We regret that many advocates in
> the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and
> now focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of
> ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We
> view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign
> that the debate has shifted toward climate realism."
> 
> Mario asks, "Sound familiar?"
> 
> The foreword of the report was written by a Past President
> of the National Academy of Sciences and the American
> Physical Society:
> 
> Frederick Seitz
> President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
> Past President, National Academy of Sciences
> Past President, American Physical Society
> Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy
> 
> Frederick Seitz says, "Our concern about the
> environment, going back some 40 years, has taught us
> important lessons. It is one thing to impose drastic
> measures and harsh economic penalties when an environmental
> problem
> is clear-cut and severe. It is foolish to do so when the
> problem is largely hypothetical and not substantiated by
> observations. As NIPCC shows by offering an independent,
> non-governmental ‘second opinion’ on the ‘global
> warming’ issue, we do not currently have any convincing
> evidence or observations of significant climate change from
> other than natural causes."
> 
> I would venture to say that such eminent scientists who are
> environmental experts know at least as much as Santosh, who
> is a scientist in an unrelated field, on the issue of
> whether there is universal "consensus" on the
> causes of climate change and whether the science is
> "settled":-))



Reply via email to