Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (24741)	8/31/1998 1:42:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

From the Union of Concerned Scientists ftp.ucsusa.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, April 17, 1998 The Usual Suspects Try Again to Stall Action on Global Warming Petition Based on Ideology, Not Peer-Reviewed Science Despite the weight of scientific evidence and worldwide opinion against them, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and leaders of the Marshall Institute will soon release a petition signed by their supporters in an attempt to undermine the newly negotiated Kyoto climate change treaty. Contrary to the petition's claims, there is a strong consensus in the world's scientific community that the threat of global warming is very real and action is needed immediately. "The petition seems intended to divert attention from the clear warnings of the world's leading scientists in order to postpone actions that could reduce the risks of global warming," said Howard Ris, Executive Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The international scientific community is in broad agreement on these risks. Only these skeptics and their ideological supporters are asserting that we have nothing to worry about." The only apparent criterion for signing the petition is a bachelor's degree in science. The petition was widely circulated in an attempt to garner as many signatures as possible. To recruit signatures, the petition included a "review article" formatted to appear as an article in the distinguished peer-reviewed journal The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It is not a journal article, nor is it likely it could be published in a mainstream science journal due to its extensive use of selective and misleading material. The "review article" contains all the skeptics' usual charges about the science of climate change. The current state of understanding of climate science is best represented by the 1995 Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC drew on the work of more than 2,000 of the world's top climate scientists and over 20,000 articles from the relevant literature. It points to the use of oil and coal as the cause of a build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere leading to global warming. The IPCC projects that climate change could raise sea levels; increase the likelihood of more intense rainfall, floods, and droughts; and endanger human health. Last October, more than 1,600 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science, signed a landmark consensus declaration sponsored by UCS urging immediate action to prevent the serious consequences of human-induced global warming. "It is troubling to see the petition's authors selectively use scientific information as it suits their ideology," said Ris. "Their petition is at odds with the peer-reviewed findings of the IPCC and should be soundly rejected." What is really relevant here is how many Nobel laureates in science are on your list, not how many B.S. Rush clones you can find. Del