Just to show where I happen to stand here (not quite tango's position),
here's what the scientists actually agree on these days:

The AGU (of which I happen to be a member) just released a pretty
strong climate change statement, "Human Impacts on Climate":

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

which states and re-emphasizes:
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate.
These effects add to natural influences that have been present over
Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural
influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface
temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

This is from people who are experts in studying the Earth and
its systems - geophysicists (I'm just a regular physicist with an interest
in some of their topics).

The US National Academy of Sciences released a similar, though slightly
more equivocal, lengthy report in 2001:
http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

and of course there are the international IPCC reports which have become
increasingly confident in attributing observed warming to human effects.

Arthur

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> Just to show where I happen to stand here (not quite tango's
position),
> here's what the scientists actually agree on these days:
>
> The AGU (of which I happen to be a member) just released a pretty
> strong climate change statement, "Human Impacts on Climate":
>
> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

Quoting from the same report "AGU also urges that the scientific
basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon
objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results."

Does the FDA *urge* that decisions be based on good science? No, it
doesn't have to *urge* its stakeholders to follow good practice.

This quote is very telling. It also is a good summary of *my*
position. I stand against quasi-science, like that demonstrated in
the Greenpeace article about carbon sequestration that I posted a
few days ago.

I don't deny climate change but I'm also not inclined to jump
through hoops whenever a Green protester stages a protest or media
event.

I like policy based on good information.

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

Well, it's been a very serendipitous morning thus far. My news
summaries were all waiting for me and had some pleasant surprises.
I've a few posts I want to make before I make my own contributions
to global greenhouse gas emissions by jetting off for the holidays.

In an ironinc vein.

The AGU should put it's money where its mouth is. Maybe they've
never heard of tele-conferencing? I know it's not as much fun, nor
does it bring much stature, nor does it play as well w.r.t. office
politics as does getting funding for conference attendence, never
mind being a presenter.

Scientists contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions
http://www.nature.com/nsu/031208/031208-13.html

"Many of the 10,000 scientists attending this week's annual meeting
of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) study climate change.
Collecting them all in San Francisco undoubtedly increases our
understanding of global warming, but it releases more than 12,000
tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, pointed out one of
this year's delegates."

TangoMan