It's always sad when seemingly intelligent people ignore serious
environmental problems simply because they don't like the people who
are involved in trying to fix them. Most major scientific
organizations, including my father's friends at The Museum of Natural
History know what's happening They have a research station in
Greenland and it's downright scary.
Talking about Kyoto vs. the economy is truly sad. Nothing should come
before the health of this planet and there are trillions to eventually
be made off of new energy processes. The folks fighting all of this
have their hands in the old technology and they don't care about
future generations.
It's absolutley staggering to me that anyone who sails could ever
think that the economy should come before an issue like this.
Staggering.

http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris...emelt_2002.jpg

You can google up all the pics you want. They all show the same
thing.

As for the Oregon Petition....

In 2005, Scientific American reported:

" Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories
claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we
were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed
with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others
had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did
not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer
repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters
include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable
number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological
community.

and better yet....

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate
names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the
petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names
without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal &
Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently
phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major
weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the
names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g.,
institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?



Nice work, Bart. You're a ****ing idiot. Notice the latest twice a
year accidental dumping in the LIS? I guess you don't believe that
either.



RB
35s5
NY