"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Bob Crantz wrote, On 5/23/2007 11:42 AM:
If your feelings are hurt, I truly apologize. My point was simply to
offer up that "Earth Scientists" may have less science education than
engineers,

"May have less"??? Thos are prtty harsh words!

Damning words no less!


computer engineers and other "non-science" majors.


As a quite successful computer engineer I can state that its
altogether possible to hold an advanced degree in CS and never have
taken a true science or engineering course. (Not in my case though, since
I really majored in engineering and then physics.)

Show me the cirricula and the school. Even if you weasel your way through
some Cobol/business school scheme there are still engineering/science
courses.


I believe it is important for others to know this because these very
"Scientists" are predicting/echoing global
warming/cooling/warming/cooling/disaster/doom

This is where you're completely wrong. You're trying to make it sound
like the entire field of Earth Science has been made up of community
college dropouts.

No I am referring to college graduates.

The reality is that there is a huge amount of
advanced science, most of it published in respectable, peer reviewed
journals.

Show me one person with a BS, MS or PhD in Earth Science that has published.
Not a degree under the category Earth Science but a degree in Earth Science.
Just one.



In fact, a study was done to see how many scientific papers supported the
notion that man was a major cause of climate change, and how many
disagreed. Over 1000 papers were sampled, 75% agreed, 25% were "agnostic"
and had no opinion, but there was not a single paper that disagreed.
Although the study was criticized, even the critics admitted that it was
substantially correct.

Opinion poll - now that's science! Now let's say 5 years from now the
"consensus" is the exact opposite. What does this say about all those who
claim man was the cause of GW? How about 30 years ago when we were entering
into an ice age? How much government funding is available to show that man
is not a cause of global warming? Increase funding for the contrary opinion
then you'll see change. Scientists don't like to starve.

Did you know man is a cause of tidal change? All the mass of those people
living on the coast with its ever increasing population will keep attracting
water further and further up on land! Not to mention the mass of buildings
and SUVs!


Even the famous skeptics don't claim climate change isn't real, they
generally complain about the way it is described. For instance, there's
no way to prove that Katrina was caused Global Warming.


But do they claim man caused it as you assert above? Is it climate change or
global warming? Why two concepts?




and are affecting the very lives, livelihoods, educations, social
structure based solely upon their credential as "Scientist".

Yes, all those PhD's from major universities are worthless because Crantz
claims they're "soft on science."

I was pointing out the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Your above
line is your conclusion, not mine.