Chuck Gould wrote:

According to the site you linked, your initial impression that most
scientists are in general agreement about global warming is probably
more accurate than a revised impression that the scientific ranks are
split 50-50 or so on this issue. Unless, of course, 50% of the
scientists belong to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. :-)


Chuck,
In my mind the most important quote was:
Peiser also stated:

" ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the
current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this
majority consensus is far from unanimous.[24]"

I DO believe their is global warming, and agree with the large percent
of the scientist who believe man has a impact on the global warming, but
I did find it interesting how there will always believe enough reputable
scientist to provide those who disagree all the "experts" they need.

this should never be a political debate, but it will be for a long time.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

According to the site you linked, your initial impression that most
scientists are in general agreement about global warming is probably
more accurate than a revised impression that the scientific ranks are
split 50-50 or so on this issue. Unless, of course, 50% of the
scientists belong to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. :-)


Chuck,
In my mind the most important quote was:
Peiser also stated:

" ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the
current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this
majority consensus is far from unanimous.[24]"

I DO believe there is global warming, and agree with the large percent
of the scientist who believe man has a impact on the global warming, but
I did find it interesting how there will always believe enough reputable
scientist to provide those who disagree all the "experts" they need.

this should never be a political debate, but it will be for a long time.

On Jun 26, 9:21?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
According to the site you linked, your initial impression that most
scientists are in general agreement about global warming is probably
more accurate than a revised impression that the scientific ranks are
split 50-50 or so on this issue. Unless, of course, 50% of the
scientists belong to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. :-)

Chuck,
In my mind the most important quote was:
Peiser also stated:

" ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the
current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this
majority consensus is far from unanimous.[24]"

I DO believe their is global warming, and agree with the large percent
of the scientist who believe man has a impact on the global warming, but
I did find it interesting how there will always believe enough reputable
scientist to provide those who disagree all the "experts" they need.

this should never be a political debate, but it will be for a long time.

It's all semantics. An overwhelming majority of scientists in
agreement
(a fact grudgingly admitted by a party who initially attempted to de-
bunk
statements that scientists were in agreement on this issue) can be
extremely significant even *if* the agreement is not unanimous.

Heck, I'm pretty sure that there isn't "unanimous" agreement among
medical practitioners that there's any direct link between smoking
tobacco and heart disease or lung cancer. That wouldn't make the other
90-some percent of health professionals automatically wrong simply
because a few crackpots are still being paid off by RJ Reynolds.
My own doctor, who is somewhat overweight and a smoker, actually told
me that he believes it's the cigarette paper that's primarily to blame
for the health risks associated with smoking, not the tobacco
itself....(whatever).....otherwise I think he's a pretty good
doctor. :-)

thunder wrote:

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.


Economics and poor management is what killed the WPPSS
projects and economics is why the Trojan plant (Oregon's
only nuke plant)was shut down early.