Jump to content

cabrerad

BB Participant
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    221

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by cabrerad

    Coral Fluorescence under the microscope

    in General Discussion

    Follow the link to a video of coral under a confocal laser microscope. Scroll down to first honorable mention in the 2012 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge.

     

    I should have brought some corals in while I had access to one of these in a previous job! Pretty cool and also hard to do with something that isn't sliver thin under one of these scopes.

     

    http://scim.ag/UJwFrL

     

    David

    placement of 2 tunze 6101 streams

    in General Discussion

    Have your son don mask, fins, and snorkel and paddle around! Who needs Tunzes... Actually the idea for the low placement towards the top sounds like it might be worth trying (or you could alternate placement during cleaning to help get rid of detritus that isn't out in the open).

    Symposium Meeting Trades

    in General Discussion

    · Edited by cabrerad

    I have various things available as I am shutting down my smallest (20 gallon) tank:

     

    3 Green Caulastrea-3-4 polyp frags- trade I also have pink caulastrea that I could frag if anyone is interested.- (guppychao, notajr.fan, bk market)

     

    3 Zooanthids frags (multiple polyp) of white center, green and purple zooanthids- (notajr.fan)

     

    1 Torch Coral- 3 polyps- (notajr.fan)

     

    1 Pavona decussata -trade

     

    1 Acro frag (mounted ) tan with blue tips that faded when I fragged it.-

     

     

    1 green sinularia frag and many white colt coral frags, and other things I will place on the free stuff table, unless someone wants to reserve them-just pm me. (HBH, Davelin)

     

    I also have a large piece of live rock overgrown with tan zooanthids I don't know what to do with (around 8 X8" with a hole in the middle). - (guppychao)

     

    Light strip ( 24" 2 X14W coralife thingy)- (HBH)

     

    Anyone want a free 20 gallon tank and stand- (fry_school101, second in line HBH)

     

     

    hang on powerfilter, powerhead (zoomed powersweep), heater- (Davelin315)

     

     

     

     

    Let me know if interested. I will be at the symposium for the first part of the day, but will have to leave early to continue car shopping. FYI, I do not recommend getting rear ended by a Lincoln Navigator and then getting slammed into a Trail Blazer a second later. My Sentra fared poorly, but at least all were ok and their insurance gets to pay.

     

    David

    Scuba / Honeymoon destinations

    in General Discussion

    Aruba has a couple all-inclusives (Divi and Tamarijn) that are below budget including airfare. There are also several promising looking hotels with nice digs that would fit in the budget. We could squeeze in a few dive trips into the budget (it's not included at the all-inclusive) and still leave without a big pain in the credit card. Where did you stay, Phil? Recommendations on stuff to do / things to see? Is the whole island nice enough to explore on your own?

     

    Turks and Caicos has a Club Med that would also fit under $5k, even with the dive packages, though their website lacks some info at work (can't install latest version of flash). A coworker of mine said he had fun there with his wife, but the scheduling of meals and drinks is kind of disappointing.

     

     

    I Imagine quite a few of the locations suggested have all inclusives, or you could put your own package together using hotwire, travelocity etc. They have hotel +flight packages also. I think you could go to most of these places on your budget except maybe the Caymans. I just looked at packages real quick on one of the sites and they seem plenty reasonable for flight +hotel. You could check out the island, activities and diving and choose a location you like, then worry about budgeting. St Maarten/St Martin, for example, is fantastic for top level food.

     

    You can also go to scubaboard.com and do a search to get lists of all inclusives and additional info on these locations.

     

    here's an all inclusive in Curacao:

     

    Sunset Waters

     

     

     

    David

    Scuba / Honeymoon destinations

    in General Discussion

    · Edited by cabrerad

    My fiancee and I are going to be married next May (2008) and we're trying to find some places for our honeymoon. We've almost settled on Sandals Ocho Rios in Jamaica, as it seems like a nice all-inclusive place, is somewhat affordable, and includes SCUBA. Neither of us is certified (yet). I'm not sure if I'll be getting certified prior to the trip or not.

     

    I posted a thread on RC about diving in Jamaica and I got no replies, but one person PMed me and said that Ocho Rios does not have very good diving. He said that there was too much freshwater pouring in from the Dunns River, and that has caused barren reefs. He also said that Jamaica has also been overfished.

     

    We're trying to keep things under $5k including airfare, but there might be a bit of wiggle room depending on how much better another place is.

     

    Matt,

     

    I would not recommend Jamaica for diving. It is far from the best. The person giving advice on RC is right on the money. If you can swing it, I would strongly recommend getting certified before your honeymoon. The reason I say this is twofold. First, I don't think you will want to be taking class and studying books on your honeymoon. Even a compressed resort style open water course is going to take a big chunk of time to complete (think 2.5 to 3 days all day). Second, I am not a big fan of the quick compressed resort courses you would have to take on your honeymoon (and I'm an Instructor). You will get a better experience and end up a better diver taking a course at home that last several weeks. One thing you can do is take all the course work and confined water (pool) before you go and get your instructor to certify what you have completed. You can then do your open water checkout dives (usually 4 dives) on vacation with another instructor (you will need to contact the dive shop in the honeymoon destination ahead of time). There is also the possibility of doing a resort course (not a complete cert and you have to dive under supervision) where you get to experience scuba diving in shallow water. If you have questions on the different possibilities just ask me.

     

     

    What are you looking for topside ( good food, night life or not so much night life, lots of activities, good beaches)? If you give me the answers to some of those questions I can give you better advice on where to go. Some places have great diving and are more laid back, some are more fast pace. It depends on what you are into. I'll list some additional places (In addition to those Jake mentioned, but if you give some details on what you are looking for I can narrow it down for you):

     

    British Virgin Islands (located very close and in ferry range to St. John's (one of the US Virgin Islands)- I used to work there so I know it pretty well.:

     

    St Martin/St. Maarten

     

    Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, turks and Caicos, St Lucia/St Vincent/Grenadines

     

    And there is always Key Largo/Keys/Miami

     

    There are some others, but they may be cost prohibitive

     

    David

    Pinched Mantle - Clamsdirect.com research

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    I never disagreed that this project isn't a worthwhile project for the club to participate in. I agree that this is exactly the type of research that the club should support. All I am saying is that we need to establish a clear policy and guidelines for evaluating research proposals prior to just jumping in and throwing money around. We are trying to incorporate as a nonprofit, and in that regard for accountability purposes we need to have at least some minimum guidance to follow when considering donating as a club.

     

    So, with that said. I am more than willing to assist in attempting to create this structure. I will present this as a recommendation to the Officers and see what they think. If they agree, then I will solicit for volunteers from the club to assist in drafting this policy. We can then post it here for evaluation and put it up for a vote at the spring meeting. If they approve, we can follow that vote with a proposal for funding this project (assuming it meets our guidelines :biggrin: ). How's that?

     

     

    Sounds good to me.

    Pinched Mantle - Clamsdirect.com research

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    · Edited by cabrerad

    Didn't we have this discussion before.... with the end result being that we don't have the resources to properly vet a research proposal? I think it is appropriate to post it here and for individuals to contribute if they so desire, but I'm not sure the club can/should donate to this particular project. My concerns are not based on the merits of this particular study (I think it is very worthwhile). My concerns are more macro, big picture oriented. We do not have any policy regarding the use of club funds to pay for research efforts. Before we go donating money, we need to clearly define how/when such donations can occur.

     

     

    The discussion we had before centered on the possibility of funding academic research projects. The concerns raised in that thread concerned the potential complexities involved in establishing a small grant system. In addition there were also suggestions that members of the club would be more ammenable to funding research directly related to the hobby.

    This suggestion is not the same thing. Here we have a single very modest request for help for a project directly related to our hobby. They are asking for $2500 total to fund work that may impact the entire hobby. That's 1/6th the amount that the club has earmarked to build a tank for the National Aquarium in DC.

    If I recall correctly from our last meeting, we have a surplus of funds raised through MACNA (beyond that set aside for the tank build) that are supposed to be earmarked for projects/uses to help the hobby/and or education. If I am wrong about this, let me know. I am suggesting we as a club consider spending some fraction of $2500 to help get this study completed. I believe that we should also fund some initiatives in addition to the tank build with the money set aside for educational purposes. As such, I think our club has the capability to do more than just ask individual members for donations. As for enacting a policy to deal with how the club handles donations, I think that is a good idea and one I think we can handle.

     

    David

    Pinched Mantle - Clamsdirect.com research

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    As most of us are aware that have been keeping clams for awhile the term,

    "Pinched Mantle" so ClamsDirect has hired a Marine Aquatic Lab to help us ID the

    problem and possible come up with a course of treatment.

    This past year, ClamsDirect had stepped up to the plate and have found out that

    this is most likely protozoan but need to ID. We have shipped health clams as

    well as infected ones to this lab for testing and have paid for cultures sample

    and 3 histo slides and histopathology. More research and DNA is needed but

    ClamsDirect does not have much more money in the budget to continue so please

    take the time to read this thread on our support forum.

    http://www.clamsdirect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1982

    Thanks for your support..

    ClamsDirect

     

    How about a donation/grant whatever you want to call it from the club?

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    · Edited by cabrerad

    Wegman explained why the decentered data adversely affected Mann's reconstruction.

     

    And I explained, ad nauseum, that it doesn't because Wegman fails to take into account the hypothesis being tested (this is the applied part of statistics) or the errors made by MM (mainly because he was never asked to).

     

     

    As far as I can see it here's the facts: the authors had to submit a correigendum to correct errors in the original paper pointed out by McIntyre and McKitrick, the robustness of the reconstruction was called into question by the NAS panel that reviewed the work (removing the claim of 'robust' from 60% of the reconstruction), and the Chair of the NAS panel for Applied Statistics has agreeed with MM that there are serious statistical flaws that call into question the reconstruction.

     

    Here's another another perspective

     

    http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_don...ess/7_27_06.cfm

     

    Some pertinent excerpts:

     

    Turning our attention to the methodological issues this hearing seeks to investigate, in my opinion, the Wegman report failed to accomplish its primary objective, which was

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    · Edited by cabrerad

    MBH claimed a robust reconstruction for the entire period. The NAS disagreed. Call it what you want. Either way 60% of the paper's claimed reconstruction skill was discredited by that one statement. That is a pretty serious blow, regardless of how you wish to try and sugar coat it.

     

    Yes, the NAS found some flaws the study, that is the progression of science. They did, however, back up the main point of the study, which is why I quoted the summary findings not once, but twice.

     

    For the sake of readablilty and brevity. Next time I'll quote the whole blasted 100+ pages of the report if it would make you happy.

     

    Well the statement is the leading paragraph from wich you drew your quote and pretty important in that it contradicts what you are trying to say about the NAS conclusions. I submit this statement yet again as the findings of the NAS and that your quotation needs to be taken within this context for objectivity.

     

     

    You still haven't addressed Wegman's criticisms. On the one hand we have the Chair of the NAS panel for Applied Statistics saying that the method employed in the MBH reconstruction has serious flaws, on the other hand we have the authors of the paper continuing to try and defend their work. Sorry, but the independent review by a statistician regarding the statistical methods employed still seems the more powerful argument.

     

    I am adressing the science here and explaining "the flaws". If you want to keep calling the study flawed and not actually look into it, fine. But then you are not discussing the science, nor have you attempted to adress my commentary on the issue other than saying it is dismissive.

     

     

     

    My apologies, but I do have a life. While arguing about global warming is fun, it doesn't pay the bills. There are numerous problems inherant in the multiproxy studies outlined by both the NAS panel report and the Wegman report. The fact that most of the studies use some combination of the same proxies is one of them (a fact that you keep ignoring for some odd reason).

     

     

    Well, that's funny, I have a life too..something we have in common. Actually I suggested actually reading the studies (several of which I have) becasue a lot them use much better proxies (the 98 proxies are almost 10 years old) and better models. That's a far cry from ignoring things. In fact, what you call ignoring is my refusal to just assume all those studies are automatically flawed.

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    I was referring to Wegman. I also went back and reread your posts. You made a reather quick blanket dimissal of his arguments with little or no analysis whatsoever.

     

    Wegan's main point was that MBH98 used a non center weighted PCA. What you call a quick blanket dismissal is an analysis of PCA, explanation of centering conventions, and why MBH98 used the one they did. For everyone's benefit, here are the relevant excerpts from my posts

     

    First, post 52 ( I left out the explanation of PCA the immediatelt preceeds this statement for clarity)

     

    "You could also look at an interger or interval of a priori interest to your research to see if there is deviation from that value.

    This is what MBH did in setting the mean over the 20th century to zero (to catch deviations from this period). Here is where MM had a bone to pick. They argued that the entire period should be set with mean O, not just the 20th century. In the MM analysis, the "hockey stick " component came up as PC1 in the MBH analysis and PC 4 in the MM analysis. MM decided that to exclude PC4 (and 3 and 5) and called them artifacts. This was a mistake. Subsequent analysis using MM's methodology has found all three excluded components to be statistically significant, so they should not have thrown them out. In addition, the MM analysis does not fit the entire data set when only the first two PC's are considered. When PC's 3, 4, and 5 are included it matches both the analysis of MBH and the data set. The only way the MM analysis fits the data set is to remove two of the tree ring data sets. You cannot omit data sets from an analysis without darn good reason to do so (statistical outliers are an example). This is an important check on the fit of the data and MM fall short here also. "

     

     

    If you are familiar with Wegman's testimony, you know that this was also a criticism leveled by Wegman"

     

     

    further down post 52

     

    "Now on to Wegman:

     

    I finally got a hold of what his critique of the MBH analysis was. It also focused on the PCA analysis, specifically on centering of the PCA analysis. He was basically asked if the MM criticism had statistical merit. He stated that it did. That's not really much of a revelation, no one actually contests that centering affects PCA analysis. Here is a key point: As I described above, the method of centering the data did not affect the shape or statistical significance of the hockey stick in explaining the data. The only thing it did was switch around the principal compontents (all of which were statistically significant anyways). So centering had no affect on the end result. Moreover, the centering chosen by MBH had relevence to what they wanted to test. Wegman's criticism therefore seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the hypothesis being tested. Wegman made the point that there should be more talk between statisticians and climate scientists due to these questions and yes there probably should be. The key is working together, because a statistican alone is blind to what may be an important variable or a priori assumption in a given field."

     

    So that's my first comment that addresses Wegman

     

    Second, Post 66:

     

    "Please refer back to post 52 where I address their critique of the statistical methods and explain what PCA is and why the MM accusation falls short. In addition to my own explanation, I also provide a peer reviewed publication that addresses the criticism. "

     

     

    (referring to your statement about flawed science by MBH)

     

    "As this statement is only backed up by one paper (addressed by the literature and which I expounded upon) and a very narrow interpretation of Wegman's comments, I counter there is not sufficient evidence for any such claim."

     

    Again, this addresses Wegman as well

     

     

    "To counter the MM claim that using non-centered PCA is bad math, you can reference Principal Component Analysis by Ian Jolliffe.

     

     

    Principal Component Analysis, I.T. Jolliffe"

     

    And yet again, this applies to Wegman. Here I cite a widely used textbook on PCA.

     

     

    Post 81:

     

     

    "Wegman was only asked a very narrow question. Basically he was asked if the MM critique had statistical merit. He agreed it did. Yes, centering conventions affect the ordering of PC's, no one actually disputes that. As I have oultined previously, however, MBH had a specific reason for using their non centered PCA (that is, to specifically compare the past 100 years to the current late 20th century trend). It would have been a mistake if they just used a non centered aproach with no a priori reason, but they did have one. "

     

     

    I counter that it is not accurate to say I made a quick blanket dismissal. I actually took the time to explain PCA and what the controvery was about. Where is your evidence supporting Wegman's conclusion? Citations? Analysis? Again, I am going to try to steer this conversation back to a discussion of the evidence. If you have a problem with center weighted vs non center weighted PCA, for example, let's discuss it.

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    · Edited by cabrerad

    Yes, it is interesting.. 4 centuries.. that is 400 years, yet MBH claimed to be a 'robust' reconstruction of 1000 years. Thus, the NAS panel lopped off 600 years or more than half of their reconstruction yet this somehow supports them? I fail to see the logic.

     

     

    The NAS panel did not lop off 600 years, they said there was less confidence in that period. Your paraphrasing is not accurate.

     

     

    MBH claimed a high level of confidence for their entire reconstruction, the NAS panel categorically disagreed by throwing out that claim for over 60% of their results.

     

    Again, paraphrasing not accurate here. Phrases such as "categorically disagreed" do not mesh with what the NAS reported. If you disagree with me, by all means provide supporting information.

     

    I fail to see how having over half of your paper dismissed as somehow being validated.

     

    Again, you are asking questions I have already addressed. The important assertion here as I previously quoted in my last post on the summary of the NAS statement. It also directly contradicts your "categorically disagreed" statement:

     

    Also, this paragraph preceeded the one you quoted. Any particular reason you left it out?

     

     

    QUOTE

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.

     

    I'll ask again, any reason you left this paragraph, that immediatel preceeded the one you quoted, out of your quote?

     

     

    That is the type of tortured logic that pervades the AGW camp.

     

    You are making aspersions here. Please note I have refrained from doing so myself. I have listed a lot of papers, scientific explanations, and interpretations, the vast majority of which you have not addressed. Your commentary here is veering from the objective discusion of the science involved and is provided with no citations, documents, or papers to back up your claims here. You did say you wanted to stick the science.

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    · Edited by cabrerad

    I find it curious that the primary papers presented to "verify" the MBH98 papers are more papers by the same authors of the original paper.

     

    First, I imagine you would agree that Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes should have the right to defend their own work. As I have mentioned previously, these other papers should be judged based on the strnegth of the research not discounted simply because of who wrote them. I could have simply discounted McIntyre's paper because I thought it was "curious" that he is a mining executive, but I didn't. I took the time to address his conclusions and critiques of the MNBH98 paper.

     

    Second, it is not true that all the papers validating MBH 98 have Mann, Bradley, Hughes or any combination of the three as authors.

     

    Here's an example by Wahl and Ammann that specifically addresses MBH98

     

     

    Similarly, the Technical Commentry on von Storch et al. was not authored by Mann, Bradley or Hughes.

     

     

    Just out of curiosity what does it take for a paper to be 'discredited'?

     

    As far as I am aware it is a relative term and as such (in this case) needs to be taken within the context of the evidence it is associated with.

     

    On the one hand we have the chairman of the NAS panel for applied statistics, agreeing with McIntyire and McKitricks assertions. Even the NAS panel agreed that MBH greatly overstated the 'robustness' of their reconstruction. On the other hand, we have the original authors defending their work.

     

    You are overreaching here and taking a whole suite of statments made by the panel and saying they all agree with McIntyre and McKitricks assertions. Here is exactly what the panel said in their summary which I hyperlinked to in post 72 (I suggest paying particular attention to point 3):

     

    Let me summarize five key conclusions we reached after reviewing the evidence:

     

    "1. The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    · Edited by cabrerad

    In doing some other digging I re-discovered this excellent opinion piece by von Storch and Stehr. For those that don't know von Storch is a climate scientist and is familiar with the actual state of the science. Definately worth a read.

     

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiege...,342376,00.html

    How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear

    By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr

    "Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity. "

     

    I think it relevant to point out that von Storch and Stehr acknowledge the following:

     

    most researchers do believe that a shift in global climate caused by human activity is already occurring, and that it will accelerate in the future and become even more apparent.

     

    Do some media outlets and groups play up the effects of global warming, well probably. But there are clearly also other groups and media outlets on the other end of the spectrum. But that's another discussion and back to the science. Let's continue with Von Storch and his science:

     

     

     

     

    von Storch also found MBH to be flawwed, from the article above:

    "In an article we published in the professional journal "Science" in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this hockey stick curve is flawed."

     

    I finally read the paper, and two technical comments that resulted from its publication (both in Science). In a nutshell, von Storch et al. set out to test the robustness of the MBH 98 model. They created a simulation based on MBH that introduced artificial white noise at select points into the generated temperature histories (to simulate non-climactic events). They then tested whether the introduction of this noise added more variability to the MBH model. They conclude that their addition of this white noise to the record results in a model with more variability than that presented by MBH. The inference is that the MBH model underestimates the variation in centennial and multi-decadal variations.

     

    Here is a link to the von Storch article.

     

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publi...rchEtAl2004.pdf

     

     

    This publication was followed by the following technical comment in Science

     

    Comment by Wahl et al. (Summary of which is excerpted here):

     

    Wahl ER; Ritson DM; Ammann CM

    Environmental Studies and Geology Division, Science Center, Alfred University, Alfred, NY 14802, USA. wahle@alfred.edu

    von Storch et al. (Reports, 22 October 2004, p. 679) criticized the ability of the "hockey stick" climate field reconstruction method to yield realistic estimates of past variation in Northern Hemisphere temperature. However, their conclusion was based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure. Calibration was performed using detrended data, thus artificially removing a large fraction of the physical response to radiative forcing.

     

    So basically, von Storch et al. did not construct the MBH model correctly. Not only does this application not actually simulate the MBH model (which is the whole point of the paper), it is not even a proper one for climate field reconstructions because it inherently introduces error.

     

    In a response in Science, von Storch et al. briefly admitted to the above, but now argue that the implementation of the reconstruction procedure does not affect their conclusions when they introduce red noise (basically noise where the value of one year is correlated to the noise from an adjacent year).

    Response by von Storch et al.

     

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;312/5773/529c.pdf

     

    Now von Storch is comparing apples to oranges in going from introducing white noise to introducing red. This is pretty misleading. You can

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    · Edited by cabrerad

    I would be curious what method was used to determine the 'statistical significance' of the excluded datasets.

     

    MBH 98 actually describes this in detail. The determination of which PCA components to retain in the analysis in MBH was accomplished through applying the Preisendorfer N-rule (Preisendorfer et al. 1981). Basically, each PC from the MBH data set is compared to PC's drawn from multiple randomly generated data sets (that contain the same properties as the actual data set). This is called a Monte Carlo simulation (due to the random nature of the data). If the PC's for the real data set explain more of the variation than 99% of the coreesponding randomly generated PC's, they are retained. MBH obtained 2 PC

    New Yellow Headed Jawfish not eating?

    in New to the Hobby

    · Edited by cabrerad

    I don't think this was mentioned previously, but these guys are serious jumpers. Hopefully you have a hood or something that can prevent a mishap. I lost my only Yellow Head that way when I had my first tank (it was covered with a gladd canopy and the fish managed to jump out from the space between the glass and the hang on power filter.

     

    They are really cool fish...I love watching them while diving in the Carribbean.

    Global warming - what to think ???

    in Conservation & Sustainability

    Sorry if this open letter has already been posted. Interesting, though.

     

     

    Nope, that's new (pretty sure anyways). Some of the assertions in the text are contrary to a lot of research studies out there such as "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models" and "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary" and "Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

    I gave it a read and looked down the list of scientists. The only ones I recognized were Fred Singer ( he is also critical of the relationship between CFC's and ozone, UV light and skin cancer and tobacco and lung cancer, one heck of a 'denier' this guy) and Richard Lindzen (a legitimate researcher in the field) who have been discussed previously here. Here is my initial opinion, there are enough potential problems with aspects of the Kyoto Protocol to discuss without having to resort to commentary that can't be supported.

×
×
  • Create New...