Proponents of I-695 claim environmental benefits. However, as most opponents have pointed out the environmental impacts are wide-spread and quite negative. There will be less money for regional transit. This directly increases the number of vehicles on the road. I-695 encourages the use of SUVs, Motor Homes, vans and heavy trucks. Some of these large, heavy vehicles get less than 14 miles per gallon--that's unbelievable and unexceptable. Because counties will be scrambling to fund police, fire and other necessary services, salmon recovery projects and environmental benefit programs will be scaled back or cut all together.

Now opponents have added validation to their arguments. 10 of the state's largest environmental groups are opposing I-695. These organizations know best how to protect our state's environmental interests.

Why do I-695 proponents still claim an environmental advantage?

Why do I-695 proponents care more about lining their pockets than saving salmon and protecting Washington interests for years to come?

-- Terry Baker (ttb_mail@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999

Answers

"Some of these large, heavy vehicles get less than 14 miles per gallon--that's unbelievable and unexceptable" Why do you find it difficult to believe that a large truck would get less than 14 miles to the gallon? A transit bus gets a lot less than that. Why do you find it unexceptable? Is that anything like finding it unacceptable? "Why do I-695 proponents care more about lining their pockets than saving salmon and protecting Washington interests for years to come? " Why do tree-huggers care more about the welfare of critters than they do about people?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 28, 1999.

>Now opponents have added validation to their arguments. 10 of the state's largest environmental groups are opposing I-695. These organizations know best how to protect our state's environmental interests.

What you really meant to say was "These organizations know best how to protect their *own* environmental interests." (emphasis added)

This I agree they do quite well.

>Why do I-695 proponents still claim an environmental advantage?

One can argue (not very convincingly IMO) that reduced car tabs will result in the replacement of older cars with newer cars. This is a "good thing" because newer cars produce (generally) fewer pollutants. FWIW, while the idea seems sound, I don't see that many people rushing to replace their '72 Novas if it passes. IMO, a better argument along these lines would focus on newer cars being unquestionably safer than older cars.

On the other hand, the argument that I-695 kills the environment by putting more cars on the road (due to decreased transit) is bogus (probably not as much so IMO) as well. It ignores the fact that Metro (Seattle specific. . .extrapolate appropriately for your region) will (given non-vindictive mgmt) first reduce the schedules in routes with low ridership.

If Metro takes a bus route from 3Xhour to 2Xhour (33% service reduction) during peak times and from 2Xhour to 1Xhour (50% service reduction) during off-peak times, it would be a generally bad thing environmentally *only* if the bus is usually >50% full. Given people's capability for adaptation, I'd expect a significant portion of them to change to the new schedule and get on with life. Some portion will return to their cars, but I'd expect the majority to simply take the bus at a different time. BTW: if someone has some good statistics proving/disproving this hypothesis, I'd be glad to see them.

>Why do I-695 proponents care more about lining their pockets than saving salmon and protecting Washington interests for years to come?

You misunderstand why I and many others support (oppose) I-695. I believe the revenue reduction issue is issue. The real issue is whether or not people should be allowed permission to vote on future tax increases.

If you believe that popular votes on tax increases will directly hurt the environment, I'd be curious to see your reasoning.

Lastly, there's nothing stopping you from taking the money you save (presumably) on your tabs and forwarding it to the Sierra Club.

--Brad

-- Brad Knotwell (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 28, 1999.

Brad- You significantly over rate the value of Metro. From the Smartgrowth Website:

INDICATOR 42: Metropolitan 1998 King County Benchmark Report Transportation 134 Outcome: INDICATOR 42: Transit trips per person. Definitions:  Ridership for 1986-1998 is based on annual operating statistics of revenue-linked passengers trips. Ride Free Area ridership figures were updated in 1988 and after. These add about 5.5 million non-revenue trips to the annual revenue-linked ridership figures. Observations:  This indicator has fluctuated over the last ten years, with per capita ridership reaching a high in 1989, and a low in 1994. It increased again from 1994 to 1997, but leveled off in 1998. The 1998 figure is calculated from an annual ridership of 80,269,178, and a population of 1,665,800.  Because of the overall stability, the transit system may be serving the same riders over the last ten years, with the same market response. Metro Transit Ridership Per Capita 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 46.4 44.1 47.8 48.7 48.7 48.2 48.1 46.8 44.8 45.5 46.9 48.3 48.2

 Transit ridership is a function of several regional variables, among them fuel prices, regional unemployment, transit fare changes, suburban employment growth, and public perception of transit service and traffic congestion. The ridership figures in 1996 to 1998 show the effect of the Six Year Plan which began implementation in the fall of 1996.  While ridership per capita has fluctuated, population and vehicle miles traveled have increased significantly. During the 10 year period from 1989 - 1998, King County population increased by 15.2% and transit miles traveled increased by 20.5%. Data Source: Metro Transit General Managers Quarterly Management Report, Metro Transit Division, 4th Quarter, 1995, 1997, 1998, and lst Quarter 1999. The ridership figures are derived from a sampling of transit ridership during the year; the population figures are consistent with those in the King County Annual Growth Report.

What this shows (if the format didn't go to pot), is that Metro ridership has been flat for a decade, despite the massive subsidization. Worse yet, it has been flat only because they added in to the figures the non-revenue (free bus rides) they gave. Without these numbers, it wouldn't even be flat, it would be continuing the decline seen since the fifties. But your idea is correct, a 20% decrease in funding would not necessarily equate to a 20% decrease in ridership since the more marginal routes (and there are no shortage of more marginal routes) would likely be the first eliminated.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 28, 1999.

Craig writes,

"why do tree-huggers care more about the welfare of critters than they do about people?"

Craig: do you know what the word "ecosystem" means?

It means that all species are interconnected and have dependencies and impacts upon each other. When one seemingly "insignificant" species gets snuffed out of the picture, it can set up a chain reaction in the ecosystem which can have unpredictable consequences. The most obvious of these is when the disappeared species served as a natural predator of another species: when that predator disappears, the population of the prey species can rapidly escalate, causing still more unintended consequences.

If you really must go on thinking that humans are the only species that matter and all the rest (at least the ones we can't make money from) can all go to hell, then consider the recent outbreak of non-native mosquitoes in NYC. Not a tree-hugger's hallucination, but something happening right now, documented in all the major newspapers. PEOPLE in NYC are dying from diseases spread by these mosquitoes; although a scientific conclusion hasn't yet been reached, to my knowledge, the sudden appearance and overwhelming numbers of this species is most likely due to the loss of a population controlling predator species.

This phenomenon of cause and effect between species is not "tree-hugging" hyperbole, but rather something already well-documented by the scientific community, right here in the here-and-now.

The consensus is that many of the ecosystem disruptions resulting in such disasters as the one in NYC are cause by ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION. Such as -- you guessed it -- automobile emissions!

And then there's the matter of Global Warming, which many have (and many still do) dismiss as being "eco-freak propaganda". If you haven't yet noticed, every successive year in the 1990's the record for Hottest Yearly Glob al Temperature has been broken by the following year. In other words, after several million years of maintaining a basically steady temperature, the planet is, just like all those "eco-freaks" predicted back in the 70's, GETTING WARMER EACH YEAR. We're seeing yearly heat waves of unprecedented magnitude in which HUMAN BEINGS are dying of heat exhaustion.

"Why do tree-huggers care more about the welfare of critters than they do about people?"

Are you starting to see the connection, Craig?

And what is the scientific community's consensus as to the primary cause of Global Warming?

Industrial pollution, cause by no other species but -- you guessed it -- human beings. And the most overwhelming source of that industrial pollution? AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS.

So what is the deal with all these tree-huggers anyway? What's their big hang-up about too many cars on the road?

Craig, you've shown yourself to actually be much more intelligent than the average I-695 proponent.

So you tell me.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 28, 1999.

"If you really must go on thinking that humans are the only species that matter and all the rest (at least the ones we can't make money from) can all go to hell, then consider the recent outbreak of non- native mosquitoes in NYC. Not a tree-hugger's hallucination, but something happening right now, documented in all the major newspapers. PEOPLE in NYC are dying from diseases spread by these mosquitoes; although a scientific conclusion hasn't yet been reached, to my knowledge, the sudden appearance and overwhelming numbers of this species is most likely due to the loss of a population controlling predator species. "

ACTUALLY JEFF, You're simply abysmally ignorant of entomology. Culex pipiens, Anopheles and Aedes vexans, are normal inhabitants of New York. They have proliferated due to the unusually good weather conditions for mosquito breeding in New York this year. It has nothing to do with presence or absence of predator species. St. Louis encephalitis, unfortunately, periodically colonizes avian populations in the United States,and has since records have been kept. That's why many states on the East Coast keep flocks of sentinel chickens, and periodically due serological testing to see if the virus is around. When it's there, they start spraying early. New York stopped doing this, because there hadn't been a lot of activity for several decades. But it's certainly present now, and anytime there are lots of mosquitoes, they spread it from species to species. What IS interesting, however, is that a West-Nile like encephalitis agent has been found in some of the clinical cases of encephalitis. This is not without precedent in other countries, ie., Eastern Europe, but it's a new (or at least uncommon) pathogen for the US. If THAT colonizes in the pigeons, it'll be REAL interesting.

And Jeff, we have frequently had epidemics of arthropod borne disease in this county, even predating the automobile. Philadelphia in colonial times was often afflicted with "Yellow Jack," as Yellow Fever was known at the time. During the Gold Rush days in California, Malaria was common in the mining camps along the Sierra Nevadas. More recently, there were the big encephalitis epidemics in Kern County (Bakersfield, CA) in the 50s. These were ultimately stopped by the very liberal use of DDT, followed by modifying the environment (mostly eliminating wetlands) to decrease mosquito habitat. Come to think of it, that's how the US succeeded with the Panama Canal, they drained all the wetlands and poured oil on any standing water they couldn't drain.

"The consensus is that many of the ecosystem disruptions resulting in such disasters as the one in NYC are cause by ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION. Such as -- you guessed it -- automobile emissions! " This is the usual environmentalist pseudo science, that flies in the face of both history and KNOWN ESTABLISHED SCIENCE. I would seriously suggest that you read Manson's Tropical Disease, take a good entomology course (of which the UW has several),or educate yourself on the web at the World Health Organization Division of Control of Tropical Diseases website (http://www.who.int/ctd/html/activities.html) or otherwise get the public health/preventive medicine background that will GIVE YOU A CLUE as to what REAL SCIENCE is. That way you might be a little more skeptical of the junk science (http://www.ucsusa.org/junkscience/whatisjunk.html) that your enviro- babble friends pass off as reality. In the interim, take some serious science courses, I know the UW has them. Then you'll be able to discuss entomology and arthropod borne illnesses without looking like an arrogant fool.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 28, 1999.

Thanks for the info Craig, but please take note that I used the speculative "is most likely" rather than the declarative "is" regarding the mosquito outbreak. What I almost included and apparently should have was a disclaimer such as "whether or not scientists conclude that the outbreak was in fact a result of loss of predator species, many other examples exist." I wrote that post this morning on the spur of the moment and without a good Environmental Science text within reach. Just say the word and I'll do a little backfile digging and cite o'plenty tomorrow.

But you didn't even come close to addressing the Global Warming issue, which is much more scientifically undeniable as well as more directly relevant vis-a-vis why I-695 is environmentally irresponsible. I'm well aware that pseudo-science has been used to argue in favor of species preservation. But the global warming issue is where evasive quackery has been used to deny something which has become more and more undeniable each year. And there's only one way to hold it in check lest our descendants (all 6 billion plus of 'em) fight for space on ever slowly shrinking continents. Reduce automobile emissions (along with other forms of pollution). DRASTICALLY.

I-695 will set a precedent for us to go in the opposite direction.

And by the way Craig, we seemed to be getting along okay lately -- so why the "arrogant fool" talk? Did maddjak breath on you today? Penicillin's good for that. Stay away from antibiotics, though -- they only come back stronger the next time!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 28, 1999.

It is unlikely that pro or anti I-695 forces are environmentally motivated. The current MVET tax does not take into account the age or weight of vehicle, hence one cannot point to it as being environmentally sound.

Although I-695 may appear to hurt mass transit, as others have pointed out, there are many almost-empty buses running around. So the damage to the environment is not as clear cut as you may believe.

The main benefit of I-695 is that it will require a vote of the people to approve future tax or fee increases. Hence, I-695 will make the government more responsive and more accountable.

It is very likely people will support a future version of the MVET and/or higher gas taxes, if they perceive some realizable objective. For example, people might vote for a new MVET (albeit, not so high) if it is tied to a set of effective bus routes. Effective bus routes will encourage people to get out of their cars. Thus, the environment will benefit.

As far as people being more concerned with lining their pockets as opposed to salmon, we'll have to wait and see. If you have a specific proposal for saving salmon, you might be surprised how many responsible people would vote for increased fees and/or taxes to fund your intelligent proposal. The point is right now we hardly have any say in how anything is done. I-695 will change that.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 28, 1999.

Jeff--"But the global warming issue is where evasive quackery has been used to deny something which has become more and more undeniable each year. And there's only one way to hold it in check lest our descendants (all 6 billion plus of 'em) fight for space on ever slowly shrinking continents. Reduce automobile emissions (along with other forms of pollution). DRASTICALLY."

From reading the above paragraph, it seems you're equating global warming with the population fighting for space (presumably from the melting of the ice caps). I suppose I'm naive, but it seems to me that the appropriate solution for overpopulation has little to do with cars except accidentally (pun intended) and everything to do with a reduction in birth rates.

I presume you meant to assert that the only way to prevent the destruction of the polar ice caps is to reduce the earth's mean temperature. Along the same lines, you would state that the only way to reduce the earth's mean temperature is by dramatically reducing automobile emissions. If I've mistated your position, I apologize in advance.

Personally, I suspect neither you or I know the truth of your second assertion--reduced emissions->reduced mean temperature on earth. To be accurate, something like the following would've been more appropriate "it is currently thought that the most effective way to reverse or retard global warming is by dramatically reducing automobile emissions."

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if anyone has done any scientific modelling indicating how the planet's temperature would be affected by reduced emissions.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 28, 1999.

Jeff-

"And by the way Craig, we seemed to be getting along okay lately -- so why the "arrogant fool" talk? " Sorry Jeffrey. We all have our raw nerves, and one of mine is where people say such things as, "PEOPLE in NYC are dying from diseases spread by these mosquitoes," and other such inflammatory statements concerning public health that are misinformed with relation to the underlying science. I recently had an elected county executive hurl misinformation in my face concerning such a topic, and imply that I didn't care if little kids died. Given that I've spent about a quarter of a century longer in the field than he has, and he was personally insulting, I kind of unloaded on him and embarrassed him with his own ignorance in front of several of his subordinates. I guess the vitriol just rubbed off on you when you did something similar. Sorry. There are some great courses at the UW though, in all seriousness; EPI 526, 529, and 570, ENV H 570 and 567.

With regard to loss of predator species, the biggest threat in this regard is alien (non-native, not Sigourney Weaver's buddies) species being brought into an area. Witness africanized bees, fire ants, or the Caspian Tern colony at the mouth of the Columbia that is estimated to be gobbling up a full one-fourth of the outgoing baby salmon (and I still don't understand why we don't just napalm the island (which was artificially created by dredging) rather than try to lure them to other nesting spots). The word CASPIAN kind of implies they are not a native species. This seems much more logical than destroying dams that have been there since the WPA in an effort to send a few mor fry down the river.

Now the alleged global warming issue is yet another very interesting situation. We again know from history that excursions of temperature are not uncommon in even human history (Chaucer's England, for example, had a LOT of snow and cold weather. During the Roman Empire, Southern England was much warmer, supporting reasonable vineyards and, according to historians of the day, made a passable vin ordinaire). Some of this is attributable to perturbations in the sunspot cycle, some is frankly unexplained at present. But this certainly preceded the industrial age and was certainly not attributable to CO2 emissions. Whether the current rise in temperature is attributable to CO2 emissions is also not clear, and in some dispute.

But if there were a consensus that it were, the question becomes what is effective and what is ineffective and these are questions that are answerable by science. Certain modalities of transport actually are no better than autos in terms of CO2 emissions. Ferries are not particularly good in that regard. Rail (intercity, commuter, AND light rail) turns out to have a significant enough initial cost in energy terms that it may never pay off, if the issue is to save energy. And the problem isn't just automobiles. While France and Japan get a fair amount of their electric poweer from nuclear plants (about 80% in France, I'm not sure how much in Japan), we have abandoned that technology. We either use coal fired power plants (which produce CO2), gas fired power plants (which produce CO2), build more dams (if the salmon will let us), or go to other technologies. I have seen windpower ugly-up the Tehachapi pass. Geothermal only works in a very few places. I think solar will work, but you are going to ugly up the desert with collector panels when it becomes cheap. If you have any insight into a practical fusion powerplant, don't hold back. ;) The other issue is does the human contribution really matter in the grand scheme of things? What percentage of the total CO2 output is really attributable to humankind? And is there a dynamic balance that ultimately comes into play between CO2 levels and plant (more likely plankton than terrestrial) growth? Is the old Earth going to cancel out our efforts, no matter what we do?

These are issues amenable to SCIENTIFIC study. Unfortunately, enviro-babble has replaced science in many of our high schools. My son had the misfortune of taking a ninth grade "science" course that was truly worthless. Not the teacher's fault. She was using the provided text, had a couple of courses of college (non-major) biology twenty years previously, and was as innocent of understanding of the scientific method as a cow is of ballistics. The net result though, was that most of the kids got very little from the class, and for many, it was the one required science class that they would ever take in high school.

Now I don't want to make this into "War and Peace," but I would tell you what my environmental toxicology prof (Eddie Wei) told me at Berkeley many years ago. Too many people let their politics affect their science, and that is especially bad in the environmental movement. It hasn't gotten any better in the last twenty years.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 28, 1999.

"Penicillin's good for that. Stay away from antibiotics, though -- they only come back stronger the next time! " Penicillin IS an antibiotic, Jeff.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 28, 1999.

Sorry about the bad, Gary, but just the same, you should recognize that it was part of an obvious and intentional flippant comment, and not the foundation of any significant argument.

I confess to not being an extensive expert on science & medicine. But I got the part about antibiotics, once touted as Mankind's Friend, the medicine to end all disease, leading to the development of more powerful & more potentially lethal bacteria right, right?

Sounds kind of like I-695 if you think about it: the initiative which will liberate the masses from the oppression of Big Government, and send them into the nurturing arms of a fully-privatized society. Plus we'll all SAVE MONEY that we can spend on our children. And we'll never get stuck in traffic again!

Unless the Traffic Snarl Bacteria comes back bigger and badder the next time around...

-- The Phantom Liberal Menace (chez@u.washington.edu), October 02, 1999.

"But I got the part about antibiotics, once touted as Mankind's Friend, the medicine to end all disease, leading to the development of more powerful & more potentially lethal bacteria right, right?" Oh, they are still mankind's friend. Just look at infectious disease rates and infectious disease deaths before 1946, when antibiotics became widely available. I dont know anyone in medicine who would willingly go back to that time. But that doesn't mean that evolution has stopped, and with one generation every 20 minutes, bacteria can evolve (and transfer) resistance quite fast. We need appropriate use of antibiotics and appropriate research to keep ahead of the resistance. We also need appropriate cultural norms against the spread of infectious disease as well. That is the hardest part.

"Sounds kind of like I-695 if you think about it: the initiative which will liberate the masses from the oppression of Big Government, and send them into the nurturing arms of a fully-privatized society." I don't particularly think that I-695 has ANY capability to do anything about oppression. If the government were to become sufficiently oppressive, I have little doubt that far more potent opposition than I-695 would be brought to bear on the government. That's usually what happens historically. I-695 is more directed at two other issues. These are lack of focus in government, and lack of efficiency in government. The first of these is due to what I call the cottage industry effect of government. The PROCESS of government is itself both an industry and a special interest group. It is a group whose default is one of growth, and growth in all directions. Personal success in government is largely dependent upon increasing your baseline and your number of personnel supervised. The hangers-on to government, lobbyists and special interest groups, derive their financial existence from pushing for more spending. They are not necessarily inimical to the interests of the people, but they are largely in it for themselves. Its how they make a living. In the industries that make their living on public works projects, it makes no difference whatsoever if the job is essential, peripheral, or make-work. The pay is the same. So over time the institutional biases are just to get bigger and bigger and, to a great extent, it doesnt matter whether the services being provided are even needed. In fact, government functions working at cross purposes to subsidize different things are commonplace (The SmartGrowth initiatives, while subsidizing the Nordstroms parking garage, for example).

The lack of efficiency is a result of three things. The first is that government services typically have a monopoly. The whole purpose for anti-trust legislation (and the ongoing suit against the "evil empire") is that without competition, organizations tend to deliver less value to the customer for the dollar. Any elementary economics text can give you many examples from throughout history. A second problem is that there is no discipline in the government marketplace. Any private enterprise MUST generate goods or services equal to their cot, or rapidly go out of business. Government, on the other hand, can just raise taxes. The third problem is that politicians can be bought and pay back those who donate to get them re-elected with the public money. Thats why we have Davis-Bacon at the federal level and "prevailing wage" and PLAs at the state level.

So getting back to your analogy, the problem with government is that it is NOT like those bacteria. They have natural forces that push them to be efficient, aggressive, and to evolve to do the best they can in changing circumstances. Government, unfortunately, is just the opposite. Its not a fatal flaw. It just requires that someone periodically force changes that decrease its inefficiencies and biases toward the status quo. Thats what I-695 is really all about. I wouldnt put this much effort into it i

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 02, 1999.

This isn't about polution, they are using it as another exuse as to why we shouldn't pass I-695. If they care so much about polution stop volcanic eruptions, 1 erruption can put out more polution then all the vehicles that have EVER existed has ever put out. I use this as an example because it gives you a better idea of how little cars actually add to air polution.

In addition if you lower taxes people are more likely to buy newer vehicles that put out less polution and use less fossile fuels. I personally have a hard time immagining what it would be like to spend 15,000 on a car, pay taxes on that, then have to pay up to $500 a year for 2 stickers to put on my car?!

Tony Schroeder Supporter 695 - Athiest Republican

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 02, 1999.

C

Just wondering if this is the Menace that spouted China, Russia and Cuba as utopian societies? It sure seems like it. Lets see, every one of his thoughts was shot down on a prior post, now here he is talking science.

When he's shot down on his bad research he replies "just the same, you should recognize that it was part of an obvious and intentional flippant comment, and not the foundation of any significant argument." Chez the Menace says "But you didn't even come close to addressing the Global Warming issue, which is much more scientifically undeniable" So the more than 6,000 scientist who have signed a letter stating there is no such thing as Global Warming must be in Pro I-695.

Jeff the Liberal states " And there's only one way to hold it in check lest our descendants (all 6 billion plus of 'em) fight for space on ever slowly shrinking continents. Reduce automobile emissions (along with other forms of pollution). DRASTICALLY. As for auto pollution, the manufacturers of cars don't test emissions above 60mph (?) because the levels are so low they don't register on the test equipment. Also does your "other forms of pollution" include volcano's? Which put more pollutants into the atmosphere every year than is produced by man.

Menacing the Liberals states "I'm well aware that pseudo-science" Would that be what you call this statement by you "." I wrote that post this morning on the spur of the moment and without a good Environmental Science text within reach"

The Menacing Jeff states "Just say the word and I'll do a little backfile digging and cite o'plenty tomorrow." Okay, do a little backfile (your spelling, not mine) digging (please) and cite one thing with a factual basis for your proof. You had no replies on the communist countries I slammed, so maybe you will come up with something on science. Jeff Liberal, you had no facts before and you have none now. Please give it up till you get your degree in something. That'll show all of us.

Ed - rolling out of bed after 3 hours sleep and putting together a coherent thought

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

Eddie Spaghetti,

I seriously doubt that, since "6,000 scientist" is a serious grammatical zinger, that such a thing as "6,000 scientist" could actually exist.

(Unless you're just being, um, clever like maddjak and doing a bad imitation of the Chinaman stereotype!)

I also doubt that 6,000 scientists have signed a letter saying that global warming is a hoax. Unless you put sarcasm-implying quotes around the word "scientists" and reveal that they all make their dough doing research for Exxon.

Show me the money, Ed: tell me where I can see this letter with my very own eyes.

And watch out for those RED signs on the street that say STOP. You know what the color RED stands for -- it's gotta be another COMMIE HOAX! DON'T STOP, EDDIE! GO! GO! GO! Don't listen to those COMMIES! GO OUT INTO THAT ONCOMING TRAFFIC! CELEBRATE THE FREEDOM THAT COMES WITH BEING A REAL AMERICAN AN NOT SOME DOOFUS LIBERAL HACK!!! JUST SAY YES, EDDIE, JUST SAY YES!!!!!

-- Darth Chomsky (chez@u.washington.edu), October 05, 1999.

Okay Darth Chez I still see your only recourse to my post is name-calling. But I did do some checking and you were right. I was wrong on the 6,000 scientist. It is really more than 17,000.

Please go to Warming orthodoxy ambush http://www.junkscience.com/oct99/singer.htm

And to Survey of State Climate Experts Casts Doubt on Link Between Human Activity and Global Warming http://junkscience.com/news/csepoll.html

And please see - Studies May Alter Insights Into Warming http://www.globalwarming.org/science/alter.html

I also include the following from http://www.nationalcenter.org/TP38.html Journalists are increasingly reporting that scientists have reached a consensus on global warming. Close examination of the evidence cited to support these claims, however, reveals that such claims simply don't hold water:

Claim: Scientists agree that failing to respond to the threat of global warming now could prove disastrous for some parts of the globe.

Fact: A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67% of those surveyed either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous.

Claim: Thousands of scientists have signed letters and petitions alerting the public to the dangers of global warming.

Fact: One of the letters often cited to support this claim was issued by Ozone Action. A close examination of that letter revealed that only 10% of the letter's signatories had backgrounds in climate science. Worse, landscape architects, a gynecologist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine are among the signatories.

Claim: 2,500 United Nations-sponsored scientists have concluded that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the temperature of the planet.

Fact: This claim is based on the fact that the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report suggesting a "discernible human influence" on climate change. While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

Claim: The majority of scientists believe global warming is a process underway and that it is human-induced.

Fact: A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%.

Chez you also state since "6,000 scientist" is a serious grammatical zinger, that such a thing as "6,000 scientist" could actually exist. Lets see there are about 6 billion people in the world and I sited 6,000 scientist that would represent 0.0001% of the population. So I actually think they exist.

PS. Chez please try to respond without personal attacks this is unbecoming of a liberal

Ed  got my ducks in a row

-- ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.