An introduction to this issue follows in the form of an annotated post by
Jan Schloerer:

From: JSCHLOER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: IPCC slammed?
Date: 8 Mar 1996 16:49:50 GMT

In  
    Josh F. Howlett  (jh5765@mail.bris.ac.uk)  posted ...

... a report by Reuter's.  A discussion about copyright ensued,
interesting and relevant, though perhaps not exactly what Josh
was out for.  For context, here are some excerpts from the
Reuter's piece.  *Emphasis*  mine.

[Rich Puchalsky's note: I haven't reproduced the original posted Reuters news
 article, since they explicitly stated that they would only give 
 permission for posting it for one month.]

> LONDON (Reuter)  -  Two dozen scientists have launched a concerted
> attack against the environmental orthodoxy of the 1990s.  The Earth
> may not be getting warmer, they say.  And if it is, carbon dioxide
> may not be a major culprit.    [...]

> The challenge to this view is being led by  *John Emsley*,
> a chemist at London's Imperial College of Science and Technology,
> who edited the book, The Global Warming Debate, published on
> Monday and has founded a group called the European Science
> and Environment Forum.    [...]

> *Jack Barrett*, another chemist at Imperial College, said
> the Intergovernmental Panel had ignored findings that did
> not agree with accepted global warming theories.


At the heart of this business appears to be work done by Jack Barrett
and advocated by John Emsley, which claims to show that more CO2
will not enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In late 1995,
this was discussed at length in sci.environment.  

[Rich Puchalsky's note: The major surprise to some on sci.env was the
 inclusion in ESEF of Friis-Christensen and Lassen, two well-known
 scientists who work on solar cycle length.  Any further information
 on their involvement with ESEF would be appreciated.  The best parts
 of this very good sci.env thread are presented as a single file below.]

Return to sci.env page