>Hi, John.
>
>I didn't mean to mislead you. My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I actually do consider the prospect of rising sea levels and the destruction of the gulf stream to be scarier than Gore's book.
>
>I checked out the article you referenced. The main point seems to be that since the Clinton administration is not taking GW seriously in it's Kyoto/Hague proposals, that we don't have anything to worry about.
>
>It also name four scientists, Richard Courtney, Vincent Gray, Peter Dietze, and Fred Singer, that dispute the global warming theories. I did a search at Science Magazine (WWW.SCIENCEMAG.ORG) and none of these persons had published any articles there in the last five years. There was one letter-to-the-editor from an S. Fred Singer:
>
>Climate Change Report
> T. M. L. Wigley; and S. Fred Singer
> Science 1996 March 15; 271: 1479-1483c. (in Letters)
>
>These scientists may well have been published elsewhere, and if you can dig up the references, I would love to read the papers.
>
>I did a search for "global warming" in the period Jan 1999 to Nov 2000 and found 52 papers. All of the summaries that I read seemed to take GW seriously. Based on a cursory examination, none of the 52 papers seemed to be disputing GW.
>

I haven't done an exhaustive search on what books these scientist have written. However, I've not heard any of the other scientist address the fact that their data is bad. They discount the fact that cities are typically warmer than rural areas. They are even now starting to say that global warming leads to global cooling. Check out this article or do a search on global cooling http://www.mountwashington.org/notebook/transcripts/1998/05/25.html

My point is that we should question the data. These scientists are driven by the almighty funding grant and will jump on any idea as long as they can get dollars to "study" it. A study of the data shows that satellite data over the last 20 years doesn't support global warming.