On 7 May 1996, Bert Gold wrote:
> >Just look at research on "Cold Fusion", "Global Warming", and "The Ozone
> >Hole" for further examples of the poor quality of some recent so-called
> >scientific research.
> The ozone hole is quite real. You might look up articles by Sherwood
> Rowland written in the last 10 years if you don't believe me, or if
> you have qualms about the quality of the research. The evidence
> on global warming is mixed to the best of my knowledge.
> I believe that the basis for the conclusions is careful work on ice cores.
> Why you put either of these in the same category as cold fusion
> is beyond me; perhaps you can cite review articles in real journals
> that indicate the poor quality of the science?
Yeah...any article published by "scientists" working for the petroleum
industry or for any company involved in production of CFCs.
As an (big) aside, I have a major problem with scientists who go to work
for such companies unless their role is simply to produce a new product or
process. Beyond that, industry has no place in determining if what they
WANT to produce (or already produce) is harmful to people or the
environment. It is fiscally bad policy for a company scientist to produce
any data that is contrary to the desires of the corporate heads and top
OK, now that I got that off my chest, back to our normal programming.