<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/">the missing piece at the wegman hearing</a><br><br>fwiw, the scientists at real climate (my link) have both compliments and criticisms with regard to al gore's movie. they are able to point out the details that are not fully supported by science and those that are. in the end though, they clearly recognize that gore's points are way, way more right than not. <br><br>also, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">this op-ed NY Times</a> piece is from a scientist who was listed as a skeptic of global warming. he explains how his science was twisted to be included as evidence against global warming. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
and, on the other side of the country we have another scientist also pointing out how the research has been twisted -- specifically, how her research was twisted.<br><br>snippet:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>AN OP-ED article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.<br><br>I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!) <br><br>My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause. <br><br>Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
i think if you read her editorial, she says, "My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause."<br><br>where is the significant disagreement? Richard Lindzen? she addressed this as well:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.<p><hr></blockquote><p>but, what about Doran's research being misused and misquoted, which i linked above? even if you dismiss oreskas because of an op-ed piece here or a senate staffer's piece there, there's still Doran being ignored. but, the bigger picture is that the folks like oreskas are being attacked, but the conclusions she reached has little scientific dissent and that's not in dispute; and, op-ed pieces aren't science -- they're wishful thinking. even if the number she claimed is not 100% . . . what if it's 95%? 90%? that's still significant by a very large margin. <br><br>further, the senator who you are relying on is Sen. Inhofe. he was part of a group of lawmakers who also called novelist Michael Crichton as an expert witness on climate change because he wrote a FICTIONAL book about climate. seriously, that's outrageous.<br><br>here's an interesting Salon article talking about some republican's war on science. this article gets at how they use op-eds and the like to create a "debate" -- the same strategy used previously by the tobacco industry to claim smoking wasn't harmful. shameful really. <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/09/14/mooney/index_np.html">link here</a>.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.