> >John Thornton <jthorn16 at home.com> writes
>
> >I have read
> >some of the IPCC's papers and have read Ballings and Michaels charges
> >against them. I have read the rebuttals to their charges and can
frequently
> >see for myself where their mistakes are.
>
> And what are they?
Try reading the Sept. 1993 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society'
review of Robert Balling's work written by Michael MacCracken. He had been
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for 25 years as a climate modeler.
He was later director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
For Patrick Michaels work try the Summary for Policy Makers, Second
Assessment Report by the IPCC Working Group I from spring '96. It addresses
his findings specifically. These are both excellent places to start. [JT]
>
> > Although as I said before I am not
> >an expert in this matter.
>
> But you feel quite confident to put these climatologists straight.
No, but I feel confident that I can judge the relative merits of scientific
writings of differing views and make a judgement as to which has more merit.
I can then quote them with some degree of confidence. [JT]
>
> > Since the Kyoto conference is more political than
> >anything else I don't think it is intended be the definitive word on
climate
> >change.
>
> Isn't that the problem: the 'science' of global warming is following the
> political exigencies of Kyoto.
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? The science of climate change
drives the Kyoto conference.[JT]
>
> >As far as I can tell the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> >Change would be the place to start for relatively unbiased scientific
> >information on this issue.
>
> United Nations = relatively unbiased. Surreal. It's a political, not a
> scientific body.
The U.N. isn't doing the scientific research, it appoints a panel (the IPCC)
to do that. As far as 'relatively' unbiased, the IPCC is far less biased
than Balling, a geographer by training. He only became a climate change
skeptic in '91 after receiving a grant from Western Fuels to do research. He
has since accepted funds from Cyprus Minerals, The German Coal Mining
Association, The British Coal Corporation, and the Kuwait Foundation for the
Advancement of Science. Michaels has received funds from Western Fuels,
Cyprus Minerals, The German Coal Mining Association, Edison Electric
Institute, and Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research. In comparison I
feel the IPCC relatively unbiased. I am curious as to why you hold to this
belief against the weight of evidence. [JT]
> --