From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Al Gores "Scintific " proof
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:05:00 GMT

In article <c6sFsB1w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes...
>Part 2 of 3 parts... Where's the Proof???????

>  It gets worse. About increases in carbon Dioxide in the air, Gore writes, 
>"But it is clear that doubling carbon dioxide will in fact increase global 
>temperatures andin the process subject us to the risk of catastrophic changes 
>in global climate patterens." Realize that thisisn't presented as conjecture, 
>but as "fact." How much will temperatures rise? He first insists that drastic 
>past climate alterations occurred "during temperature variations of only 1 to 
>2 degrees Centigrade," 

That history is established as fact.

>but "today, at the close of the twentith century, we 
>are in the process of altering global temperatures by up to three to four 
>times that amount."

Three to four times is the high estimate.  The range is an increase 
in the next century of 1 - 4 degrees.

>   The problem here is that most scientists who have been asked about carbon 
>dioxide agree that its level is increasing but contend that there is no proof 
>whatsoever that the earth is warming because of it. 

This statement is misleading.  Climate records going back many 
centuries show that CO2 content in the atmosphere and temperature are 
correlated.  The unresolved question is whether anthropogenic 
increases in carbon dioxide have affected global temperatures.  To 
date, the predicted changes cannot be distinguished from natural 
variability.  But if the consensus is right, that will change within 
decades.

>Gore counters that "a 
>small number of scientists" argue against his conclusions. But he maintains 
>that the "insistence on complte certainty" about global warming is an efort 
>to avoid acting "boldly, decisively,comprehensively, and quickly, even before 
>we know every last detail about the crisis."

You're in a getting into your car late at night.  You see a dark 
shadow moving toward you rapidly from the distance.  Do you start the 
car and get moving quickly or do you wait until the figure is close 
enough to identify, at a time too late to keep from being carjacked?

>(where is any mention of acting constitutionaly?)

That is assumed.

>   For some easily accessible details about the supposed global warming 
>"crisis," the senator ought to avail himself of the logs containg tens of 
>thousands of temperature readings taken all over the earth during the past 
>100 years. Their data confirm that there is no global warming or cooling. 

As noted above, all they say is that if there is any warming, it 
cannot be distinguished from natural variability.  It is quite 
different to say that we cannot detect an effect than to say that it 
does not exist.

>Or 
>he might turn to men like  atmospheric and space physicist Dr. S. Fred 
>Singer, who organized a group of scientists to counter Gore style 
>environmental radicalism. Calling the Gore thesis "exagerated." Dr. Singer 
>says, "It's wrong on many counts, and he should know better because we have 
>told him so."

In the late 1950s, Singer was one of the coauthors of a paper that 
proposed a method for measuring atmospheric ozone from satellites 
using backscattering of ultraviolet radiation from the atmosphere.  
An instrument using this method was develop by Donald F. Heath; the 
first such instrument flew in 1970.  But Singer has not been active in 
the field in years.  He has not been part of the international groups 
studying the possible effects of changes in carbon dioxide on the 
atmosphere.  His arguments are not widely accepted by the leaders in 
the field.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.guns