Re: [escepticos] eco-escepticismo o intereses ocultos?

["F. Perfectti" <fperfect@...>]

Buenas,
creo que me voy a repetir en este asunto, pues me voy a autocitar(*) (de un 
mensaje a la corrala previo):

> "2. GLOBAL WARMING: IS THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE COOLING DOWN?
> The National Academy this week delivered a report on global warming, 
> requested by the Bush administration. While emphasizing the need for 
> additional climate research to reduce uncertainties, the report concluded 
> that global warming has taken place in the last 50 years as a result of 
> human activity. According to the report, this conclusion "accurately 
> reflects the current thinking of the scientific community." Indeed, there 
> are hints of a scientific consensus. Rather than scoffing at the idea, 
> critics now seem to argue that if there is warming, it's probably good for us."
>
>
> "2. CLIMATE CHANGE: GEOPHYSICISTS PREPARE TO TAKE A POSITION.
> A committee of the 34,000 member American Geophysical Union has drafted a 
> statement of the organization's position on global climate change. While 
> stressing the uncertainties in climate predictions, the statement says 
> anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are affecting 
> the global climate. Unlike the OISM petition, the AGU statement does not 
> advocate a global experiment to find out what further increases would do. 
> Instead, the statement calls on scientific organizations to urge all 
> nations to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. "
>
>
> " 3. GLOBAL WARMING: TWO NEW STUDIES BOLSTER THE GREENHOUSE CASE.
> This still won't end the debate, but the new results, released on 
> Wednesday, report strong evidence that the oceans are warming, and human 
> activity is a major cause. In both studies, published this week in 
> Science, groups from the National Oceanographic Data Center and the 
> Scripps Institution of Oceanography found a direct connection between 
> emissions of greenhouse gases and warming of the oceans. One of the study 
> leaders commented that, "the signal is so bold and big that you don't have 
> do any fancy statistics to beat it out of the data." At least, the models 
> used to predict future warming succeeded in getting past ocean warming 
> right, over a 50 year period. Not many studies have passed such a test. 
> The new results come only weeks after the controversial decision by 
> President Bush to withdraw from the 1997 Kyoto accord. "

Lo anterior es de What's news, que no creo que sea precisamente magufo....y 
despues tenemos una serie de personajes (Lomborg, etc) que vienen a 
redescubrir que muchos científicos no hacen bien su trabajo,... y toman 
algunos datos y evidencias que les favorecen (e ignoran muchas otras) y de 
ahí hacen un caso, venden muchos libros y se motan un instituto. En fin 
permitidme que sea esceptico con el escepticismo de Lomborg...y con los 
desvarios grimpinceros.

Saludos


(*) técnica muy utilizada por los científicos para dar relevancia a su 
trabajo...y que por cierto revistas como Nature o Science ponen en práctica 
en cada número

------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Perfectti                     fperfect en supercable.es