THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science
academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing
nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change."
When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate
is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer
climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill."
Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity."
According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does
represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very
broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific
reality that needs to be addressed by government."

....WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that
"more study is needed before the United States takes further action on
climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this
is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to
insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to
global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose
any such move."

wrote in message
ups.com...
THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science
academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing
nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change."
When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate
is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer
climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill."
Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity."
According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does
represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very
broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific
reality that needs to be addressed by government."

...WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that
"more study is needed before the United States takes further action on
climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this
is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to
insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to
global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose
any such move."



==========================
From http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

"On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of
Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes
(1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to
show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of
recent global warming.
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI
database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI
database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003
reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in
question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that
global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate
Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much
lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate
change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15
December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her
Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords
"climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed
publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword
search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the
results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using
the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the
1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles,
author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided
into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories
which I added (# 7, 8):

!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-- !--[endif]--

1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position

2. evaluation of impacts

3. mitigation proposals

4. methods

5. paleoclimate analysis

6. rejection of the consensus position.

7. natural factors of global climate change

8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially
falsify her study"

============================

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.

*JimH* wrote:

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.

Of course, YOU wouldn't!

wrote in message
ps.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more
evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.

Of course, YOU wouldn't!


Of course.

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more
evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.

Of course, YOU wouldn't!


Of course.

Only a goose stepper would think that the dumbest president ever knows
more than most of the world's scientists about global warming!! Simple
question: If Bush didn't believe the data in presented to him, why did
he knowing allow one of his henchmen, who is not a scientist or
climatologist, alter data????

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more
evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.

Of course, YOU wouldn't!


Of course.

Only a goose stepper would think that the dumbest president ever knows
more than most of the world's scientists about global warming!! Simple
question: If Bush didn't believe the data in presented to him, why did
he knowing allow one of his henchmen, who is not a scientist or
climatologist, alter data????

I already provided one example.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ps.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more
evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.

Of course, YOU wouldn't!


Of course.




Why is it not surprising that someone who thinks it is okay to shoot guns
at passing cars is crying like chicken little over the myth of global
warming?

P. Fritz wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ps.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more
evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.

Of course, YOU wouldn't!


Of course.




Why is it not surprising that someone who thinks it is okay to shoot guns
at passing cars is crying like chicken little over the myth of global
warming?

Hmm, please, show where I ever, EVER said it was "okay to shoot guns at
passing cars". You must not have the brain capacity to follow a simple
thread, because I never said such a thing!!

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:50:00 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science
academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing
nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change."
When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate
is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer
climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill."
Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity."
According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does
represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very
broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific
reality that needs to be addressed by government."

...WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that
"more study is needed before the United States takes further action on
climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this
is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to
insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to
global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose
any such move."



==========================
From http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

"On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of
Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes
(1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to
show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of
recent global warming.
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI
database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI
database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003
reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in
question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that
global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate
Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much
lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate
change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15
December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her
Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords
"climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed
publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword
search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the
results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using
the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the
1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles,
author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided
into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories
which I added (# 7, 8):

!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-- !--[endif]--

1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position

2. evaluation of impacts

3. mitigation proposals

4. methods

5. paleoclimate analysis

6. rejection of the consensus position.

7. natural factors of global climate change

8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially
falsify her study"

============================

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.


Thanks. That's an interesting link. Maybe Cooney was correct in taking some of
the 'certainty' out of the documents he reviewed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:50:00 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
THE ROOF, THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS ON FIRE...: Last week, "science
academies from 11 of the world's leading industrial and developing
nations...issued a warning that nations must tackle climate change."
When it comes to climate change, the broad consensus is that the debate
is over. As such, several senators are "hatching plans to offer
climate-change initiatives as amendments to the [energy] bill."
Environmental activists are "heartened by this flutter of activity."
According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, "This does
represent a shift in debate in the Senate where we have reached very
broad agreement, despite a few holdouts, that this is a scientific
reality that needs to be addressed by government."

...WE DON'T NEED NO WATER: The Bush administration still maintains that
"more study is needed before the United States takes further action on
climate change." Considering the doctored reports they're reading, this
is almost a logical assumption. Unsurprisingly, as senators "try to
insert language to rein in emissions believed to be contributing to
global climate change...the administration made clear it would oppose
any such move."



==========================
From http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

"On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of
Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes
(1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to
show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of
recent global warming.
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI
database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI
database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003
reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in
question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that
global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate
Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much
lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate
change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15
December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her
Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords
"climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed
publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword
search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the
results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using
the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the
1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles,
author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided
into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories
which I added (# 7, 8):

!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-- !--[endif]--

1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position

2. evaluation of impacts

3. mitigation proposals

4. methods

5. paleoclimate analysis

6. rejection of the consensus position.

7. natural factors of global climate change

8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially
falsify her study"

============================

I don't blame the Bush administration for wanting to wait for more evidence
one way or the other before any action is taken.


Thanks. That's an interesting link. Maybe Cooney was correct in taking some of
the 'certainty' out of the documents he reviewed.
--
John H

Yeah, sure. Do you really think that a person who has never taken
courses in climatology, or meteorology, and is not a scientist in any
sense, is qualified to change documents that were written by
scientists? Here, try this link to MIT's study:
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.ed...www/rpt11.html