From: (Diverd4777)

- Can you Please Provide us with a list of Scientists ( Sans Bible Beaters )

Who Do NOT believe in Global Warming

Please... Name Some Names..

There are many, though not nearly the same number that support that CO2
emissions are increasing global temperatures. Close scrutiny will reveal that
most of the scientists denying global warning have their research funded by
groups that want to deny the connection,ie, oil companies and business groups.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: N8KDV

Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in
greenhouse warming".

And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are.



No, there are plenty of scientists producing findings that will enhance their
research subsidies. Interestingly, most of the research that denies global
warming can be traced to subsidies coming from yje oil industry.

But, what am I thinking?! I'm trying to be rational with Steve "Better Grip on
Reality" Lare.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

- Interesting Article:

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

http://adsl-68-88-67-252.dsl.rcsntx....s/chriton.html

A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003

He raises valid points about Consensus, and treatment of scientists
who find evidence that goes against the mainstream.
Eventually
Suggesting a " Double Bind" scientific methodology
for Global Climate Models..
Such as is currently used in Drug tests..


In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) writes:

Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point?
From: ocom (Michael Bryant)
Date: 17 May 2004 00:44:48 GMT

From: N8KDV

Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in
greenhouse warming".

And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are.



No, there are plenty of scientists producing findings that will enhance their
research subsidies. Interestingly, most of the research that denies global
warming can be traced to subsidies coming from yje oil industry.

But, what am I thinking?! I'm trying to be rational with Steve "Better Grip
on
Reality" Lare.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Scientist Statement
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
(1992)
Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel
laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World
Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry
Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1009


From: N8KDV

Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in
greenhouse warming".

And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are.



No, there are plenty of scientists producing findings that will enhance their
research subsidies. Interestingly, most of the research that denies global
warming can be traced to subsidies coming from yje oil industry.

But, what am I thinking?! I'm trying to be rational with Steve "Better Grip
on
Reality" Lare.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: Dan

Of course, the scientists who believe in global warming have *no* axes
to grind, right? All of them are pure and true, right? Who is
paying for *their* research?

Why don't you tell us? Rich liberals?

Corruption in scientific research goes both ways, and it's extremely
disingenuous of you (at best) to imply otherwise.

The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't is
usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out.




Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: Dan

On 17 May 2004 01:29:00 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant)
wrote:

The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't
is
usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out.

Interesting how you "know" that " The research that doesn't is
usually tied to oil companies", yet you don't seem to know who is
paying for the "The consensus of research supports global warming"


I spent a whole year researching the topic when it was the intercollegiate
debate topic. As DiverDan's earlier post pointed out, the vast majority of
related scientists have agreed that the link is overwhelming. Research
supporting the link comes from a variety of sources, mainly regular funding
sources drawn from institutional basic research budgets. The research denying
the links is primarily funded by oil companies.

By the way, few of the nation's best intercollegiate debaters could defend the
negative research. Wake Forest won a national championship defending the
quality of the research supporting the link.

When you examine all the studies, it's a fairly one-sided issue. But not if you
rely on Rush Limbaugh to interpret scientific studies!

Though I understand that his pharmacological research credentials are
outstanding!


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Michael 'I abuse drugs' Bryant wrote:

From: Dan

On 17 May 2004 01:29:00 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant)
wrote:

The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't
is
usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out.

Interesting how you "know" that " The research that doesn't is
usually tied to oil companies", yet you don't seem to know who is
paying for the "The consensus of research supports global warming"


I spent a whole year researching the topic when it was the intercollegiate
debate topic. As DiverDan's earlier post pointed out, the vast majority of
related scientists have agreed that the link is overwhelming. Research
supporting the link comes from a variety of sources, mainly regular funding
sources drawn from institutional basic research budgets. The research denying
the links is primarily funded by oil companies.

By the way, few of the nation's best intercollegiate debaters could defend the
negative research. Wake Forest won a national championship defending the
quality of the research supporting the link.

When you examine all the studies, it's a fairly one-sided issue. But not if you
rely on Rush Limbaugh to interpret scientific studies!

Though I understand that his pharmacological research credentials are
outstanding!

And so are yours, Fat Boy... you are a drug abuser.

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote:

From: Dan

Of course, the scientists who believe in global warming have *no* axes
to grind, right? All of them are pure and true, right? Who is
paying for *their* research?

Why don't you tell us? Rich liberals?

Yeah rick liberals like Kerry that own 3 SUVs. Oh yeah his FAMILY owns
the SUVs not him.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote:

From: "Stinger"

Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was
"Global Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine.

And you'll see that that research was sponsored by the CIA to counter
global warming scientists who were starting to emerge in the early
70's. Some of the reports even encouraged CO2 emissions to "balance
out" cooling trends. Do a search on a guy named Idso.

Interestingly, the latest models of greenhouse dynamics actually do
predict localized cooling trends as warmer ocean temperatures disrupt
traditional oceanic currents. Scientists studying greenhouse dynamics
have long predicted an ice age in Europe from the disruption of the
North Atlantic current.

The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is
overwhelming.

The only thing overwhelming is your ignorance but you are great
entertainment.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California