From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:24:53 GMT

kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:

>To Zack and other similar ignorant colleagues:

No point in digressing to name-calling.

>The Greenhouse Effect is a reality. We could not live on this planet without
>it, as it would be too cold...

Of course. I never said anything contrary to this.

>The question is about whether global warming is occuring. I used to think
>so, but after much reading in REAL meteorological journals (i.e., not Time
>magazine) and from attending conferences, I believe it is not. I could 
>explain the details, but it's obvious, Zack, you have no meteorological
>background nor a Calculus background, which is necessary for a true]
>understanding of the matter. Hence I won't waste my time.

Most of my knowledge of the Global Warming issue is not from magazines
like "Time". (I don't think I have cited Time in any Global Warming debate
I have been involved in.) Actually, I prefer magazines like "Science",
"The Scientific American" and "National Geographic". I do not have any
"formal" experiance in meteorology but I have studied it for quite some
time. And as a former Math major, I took several semesters of Calculus
and made quite good grades. I fail to see how anything I have said in
this thread on this matter could make you feel that way.

>And Zack, you are obviously concerned about the environment. So am I.
>Therefore I ask -- why must we dwell on this issue? Why must environmentalists
>concern themselves with half-blown theories and fiction? There are many
>legitimate concerns that need attention that are often overlooked such as

We really shouldn't dwell only on Global Warming. I merely made an observation
that your original comment on the "hoax" of global warming. It is not a hoax.
Nor it is a proven, facts in evidence, obvious to happen occurance.

>1) Acid rain
>2) Air pollution
>3) The disappearing wetlands on the Gulf Coast (personally my main concern,
>       since I grew up here and fished here all the time)
>4) Run-off pollution.
>5) Finding alternative enery sources to combat our dependence on foreign
>       oil and to combat the oil companies who raise gasoline prices at
>       the slightest excuse (remember the Persian Gulf war?).

ALL of these are genuine concerns of ALL environmentalists including myself.
If my eagerness to respond to your assertion that global warming is a hoax
indicated to you that I have a one track mind on the environment, let me
set you straight. I know global warming is a hotly debated issue, even
amoung atmospheric scientists. I have never said that it wasn't. But it
most certainly is not my one concern, nor it is my "hot button". My hot
button is the biodiverity issue. The loss of hundreds, maybe thousands
of species of plants and animals every year.

>If half the resources were spent on these LEGITIMATE concerns instead of an
>unproven and probably wrong theory, the world would be a much better place.

Absolutely!

>I might also add that the research funds in meteorology could also be better
>utilized on improving our observation instruments, forecasts, etc. From a
>personal standpoint, this could mean more research on hurricanes, whose
>funding has declined because of the past "quiet" decade (in terms of
>hurricane activity); because hurricanes are no longer of public interest,
>and the mythical global warming is, funding has declined.

Meteorology and Climatology are two separate fields of study and research.
Granted they have similarities and overlaps, but they ARE distinct. Global
Warming is a CLIMATE issue, not a meteorological issue.

>Pat Fitzpatrick (and, yes, I am a real scientist. And until you start
>thinking Zack, you are a midget in my eyes)

Fine. You're a scientist in your eyes.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."