Found a letter to the editor of the (Portland) Oregonian newspaper today (11/28/09) which states: "There is a book titled 'Climate Change Reconsidered' that is co-edited by S. Fred Singer - one of the world's foremost environmental scientists - and Craig Idso - of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change." "The book lists the names of more than 31,400 American scientists who have signed a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." "Of these scientists, 9,000 hold Ph.D. degrees in their field." I take no responsibility for the contents of this letter. I merely relate it for your reading pleasure, and have made no effort to verify it's claims or contents. Brad Crain *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Bradford R. Crain <crainb_at_pdx.edu> wrote: > Found a letter to the editor of the (Portland) Oregonian > newspaper today (11/28/09) which states: > > Interesting that the book is published by the Heartland Institute which is heavily subsidized by the ExxonMobil Corporation. Mr. Walter F. Bucholtz, an ExxonMobil Executive,, served as the Institute's Government Relations Director in 2005 according to an IRS filing. Probably a coincidence. Certainly the funding of an organization devoted to publishing skeptical reports on Global Warming by the world's largest petro-chemical corporation couldn't be considered biased, could it? I mean, what would ExxonMobil have to gain from trying to confuse people about global warming? At any rate the "book" appears to take research results and pick and choose bits and pieces that support an opposing view to man-caused global warming. I dunno about the signatories. But simply having an opinion, one way or the other, seems to me to not be much evidence, one way or the other. In my own personal opinion, there is no proof that the current understanding of electricity is correct. (In this case I aver that my opinion is absolute fact.) Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net PS: Neither Bradford Crain nor Dave Kruger could be found amongst the signatories of the petition. I looked. crj *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Brad wrote: >"There is a book titled 'Climate Change Reconsidered' that is >co-edited by S. Fred Singer - one of the world's foremost environmental >scientists - and Craig Idso - of the Center for the Study of Carbon >Dioxide and Global Change." >"The book lists the names of more than 31,400 American scientists >who have signed a petition that states, "There is no convincing >scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, >or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, >cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption >of the Earth's climate." G'Day Brad and Paddlewise Climate Change Reconsidered is a well organised summary written in a dismissive style betraying its bias. From a first quick review the data seems to be out of date in many areas. One is hard pressed to find references in the report that are much later than 2007 and they are mostly around 1996 to 2002. Take for example the repeated reliance on Richard Lindzen's data and theories without looking at his most recent studies or taking into account their inaccuracies. Reanalysis and correction of his data whether by sceptics, advocates and just plain searchers after the truth, wound up supporting the IPCC model. Likewise the reliance on data for Arctic and Antarctic ice melting doesn't look at the most recent findings. Nor is there any balanced reporting of the urban heat island effect where the report's assumption is that something that obvious hasn't been accounted for through almost a decade of work. The issues of bio-fuel and agriculture are interesting at first sight I would agree with the problem they suggest around bio-fuels but not necessarily with their solutions However, the inferences around agriculture appear focus on crop productivity through CO2 enhancement, a lop sided approach that doesn't address the basic problem and appears to be nothing more than a plug for CO2 emissions. Not much comfort in this report I'm afraid. I'll continue to seek ways of reducing my kayaking carbon footprint and continue to read only those sceptics or advocates who appear to be dispassionate and up to date. The major things that work for me: - * avoiding car shuffles wherever possible * looking for local paddles where possible * sharing cars * focusing on high carbohydrate diet (definitely not for everyone) * looking after clothing, gear and boats (CO2 intensity roughly 0.5kg CO2-e per dollar in Oz for these things) * Avoiding hospitalisatioin - universal appeal I would have thought:~) All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
>> "There is a book titled 'Climate Change Reconsidered' that is >> co-edited by S. Fred Singer - one of the world's foremost environmental >> scientists S. Fred can call himself "one of the world's foremost environmental scientists," but other people have other words for him "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air": Union of Concerned Scientists complete bullshit: World Glacier Monitoring Service "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists": National Academy of Science http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478 The real good news about GW is that I currently have a 4 hour drive to the ocean. If sea levels go up enough, I can save gas, which will reduce my carbon footprint, which will...hmmmm. Steve -- Steve Cramer Athens, GA http://www.savvypaddler.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
My conclusions so far on GW: Peter's goal of avoiding hospitalization is a good one; I concur. Hospitals are interesting places to spend your vacation, but I can get a motel room much cheaper in Palm Springs. If the Unification Church and Rev. Moon want to support Fred Singer, they have the constitutional right to do so. If Exxon Mobile wants to pay me $1,000,000 to deny GW, I'll do so gladly. If R.J. Reynolds wants to pay me $1,000,000 to claim that second-hand smoke is good for us, I can do that too. (Although I would be ashamed.) What I cannot do is prove or disprove GW...I'm in the wrong field; I'm in Left Field.. If GW is true, and sea levels rise, then I look forward to catching flounder and Dungeness crabs from the bridges of Portland, although it might cause some accidents on the I-5 bridge. Sincerely, Brad Quoting Steve Cramer <cramersec_at_charter.net>: >>> "There is a book titled 'Climate Change Reconsidered' that is >>> co-edited by S. Fred Singer - one of the world's foremost environmental >>> scientists > > S. Fred can call himself "one of the world's foremost environmental > scientists," but other people have other words for him > "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air": Union of Concerned Scientists > complete bullshit: World Glacier Monitoring Service > "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead > scientists": National Academy of Science > > http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478 > > The real good news about GW is that I currently have a 4 hour drive > to the ocean. If sea levels go up enough, I can save gas, which will > reduce my carbon footprint, which will...hmmmm. > > Steve > -- > Steve Cramer > Athens, GA > http://www.savvypaddler.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:52 PDT