Interesting that his very first sentence absolutely controverts the idea that Singer and Avery put forth that the effects of human activity are not worth mentioning.

It's a debate that will go on until (if the left side is right) there is no turning back. I realize and agree with him that there is probably a lot of scare mongering, but at the same time, it may be that in order to get anybody to do anything at all, a good scare is needed.

>sorry wrong link. this is waht I meant from BBC.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213.stm?ls is the one that Nigel gave me.
>
>
>>>From the same page, these link....
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213.stm?ls
>>
>>Did any scientists outside of the U.S. sign? Or do we have another WMD situation where almost nobody outside the U.S. believed it and the U.S. assertions turned out to be [let's be kind here] ... doubtful.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I guess we can exchange links all day long.
>>>
>>>The reason I started this link is because the book had been "peer-reviewed", meaning its been review by other experts.
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4600402.stm
>>>
>>>my opinion about GW (global warming) had very little to do with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Looks to me he has good credentials.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061109/nyth021.html?.v=71
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By couple of Amospheric Physicists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
>>>>
>>>>hhhhmmmmm
>>>>
>>>>while we're on the subject...
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213.stm?ls