Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

hap, Some years ago i said here, maybe even to you, something like: say all the science supporting human induced global warming was wrong. For arguments sake. What then? Then we still, because of our concern about the idea, end up with cleaner air. Cleaner air worldwide for all the children born today. Good result, eh.

Even if all the science, which i believe on balance supports woan-made climate change, is wrong we still end up with cleaner air.

DesertDrifter, would have also felt the same back some 10 years ago. He said it again today in the first reply .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168052871 .

That aside, the first very familiar name in your author list was Dr. S Fred Singer. on a search i first got [...]Koch Industries and the Web of Denial in Australia .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=60364052 .. 2010. There would be many more. That led to

Email of July 25, 1996 to Lead Authors of IPCC Working Group I Report1

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 21:02:35 PDT
From: Ben Santer <[e-mail]>
To: (78 undisclosed recipients)2
Subject: Latest zinger from Singer

To all Lead Authors of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, and to all Contributors to Chapter 8, You will all have received (from Dr. S. Fred Singer) copies of Dr. Singer’s letter of July 25th to the Wall Street Journal. This letter makes some very serious allegations, and again raises the spectre of “scientific cleansing” of Chapter 8. I am disturbed by the use of this term. Over the last few years, “ethnic cleansing” has taken on vivid meaning for most of us. We have seen examples of “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and Rwanda. “Ethnic cleansing” is a synonym for genocide – the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Singer’s allegations of “scientific cleansing” are morally repugnant to me, playing as they do on our familiarity with the use of the word “cleansing” in a non-scientific context.

Singer’s latest letter to the Wall Street Journal contains serious factual inaccuracies.

Continued - https://www.realclimate.org/docs/Email_25_July_1996.pdf