A recent publication by S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, research scientist and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is extremely detailed.

He states: 1) There is no such "scientific consensus" that burning fossil fuels is the chief cause of global warming. 2) "The widely touted consensus of 2,500 scientists in the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change is an illusion" because only 52 panelists had scientific qualifications. 3) Estimates of the open rebellion within the American Meteorological Society rank and file scientists regarding manmade global warming are well over 50 percent.

Singer also states that observed and predicted patterns of global warming by computer models are incompatible. He states that: cloudiness reduces the warming effect of increased CO2; development of ethanol and hydrogen is counterproductive because of the great amounts of energy needed. Tens of Advertisement

Acupuncture & Chinese Herbal Medicine Clinic thousands of interested persons benefit from the global warming scare to the tune of multi-billions of dollars.

Professor Singers states that "slightly warmer climates with more CO2 is beneficial" and will increase the GNP and raise the standard of living. CO2 is plant food and is essential to the growth of crops and trees and ultimately to the wellbeing of animals and humans. Canada, Russia and northern Europe including Mongolia come out to be clear winners due to slight global temperature increases with more CO2 because of large projected increases in agricultural production.

Research has shown it is the impact of the sun on past climate changes over thousands of years. It is the sun that affects the climate, stupid, not manmade CO2. Why do people believe the Associated Press and politicians who probably share a single brain cell amongst them?

Archie McPhee