Concensus, conshmensus. The debate rages on.

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
The American Physical Society has reversed its former stance on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
 
You didn't read your own story.

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
 
doesn't matter spike. remember, one instance = global pattern to the peeler.

"vern jablonsky, over in idaho, was telling me that he thinks that coca cola is poisoning our precious body fluids with communist propaganda. ever notice all the red they use on their product? yep. so i sold my stock and called my NRA rep to let him know."
 
german wudn't exacty the preferred language amongst intellectuals. i'm not even sure germany was even a country when karl got his start... not that that has anything to do with the language itself... but in any case it wasn't exactly an epicenter of smarts at the time.
 
You didn't read your own story.

Of course I did. How do you think the "Update 7/17/2008:" got italicised? That didn't happen by itself.

In the story, the update was in a smaller "footnote" text. I left it at the same size as the rest of the text. On purpose.

Did I know before I posted this that that would be the only sentence in the entire story that would get your attention? Of course I did. Tell me something new.
 
What the hell is it about debating the science behind AGW that just scares the livin' shit out of some people? Look at how quickly the thread got hijacked by those intent on squelching any debate on the subject.
 
What the hell is it about debating the science behind AGW that just scares the livin' shit out of some people? Look at how quickly the thread got hijacked by those intent on squelching any debate on the subject.
Sometimes they remind me of creationists. Debate in science is always good (well, given that it is science), regardless of where you stand on the issue.
 
What the hell is it about debating the science behind AGW that just scares the livin' shit out of some people? Look at how quickly the thread got hijacked by those intent on squelching any debate on the subject.

no one is particularly afraid of the discussion, jim.

but you have to appreciate that your arguments at times are poorly evidenced and often based on some lousy leaps of logic.

remember this:
"After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large."

and you're complaining that the 80,000th post you've made about this topic quickly degenerated into a discussion of coke v pepsi?

seems to me it got the level of serious response it deserved.
 
So says one of the worst offenders.

Instead of keeping it on track or bringing true debate, some just make smarmy remarks & say nothing at all.
 
there's NOTHING to DEBATE when it's shit on the level of...

"vern jablonsky, over in idaho, was telling me that he thinks that coca cola is poisoning our precious body fluids with communist propaganda. ever notice all the red they use on their product? yep. so i sold my stock and called my NRA rep to let him know."

when will you understand that? ever? as soon as there is something of substance, there will be "debate." until then. it's just "bate and snicker."
 
Of course I did.

Then you knew in advance that what you typed when you posted the story was completely inaccurate. yet you still typed it.

What the hell is it about debating the science behind AGW that just scares the livin' shit out of some people? Look at how quickly the thread got hijacked by those intent on squelching any debate on the subject.

Since your one comment was proven false immediately the debate was over. People moved on to more interesting things.
 
So says one of the worst offenders.

Instead of keeping it on track or bringing true debate, some just make smarmy remarks & say nothing at all.

Coming from one of the worst offenders that's pretty funny.
 
there's NOTHING to DEBATE when it's shit on the level of...

"vern jablonsky, over in idaho, was telling me that he thinks that coca cola is poisoning our precious body fluids with communist propaganda. ever notice all the red they use on their product? yep. so i sold my stock and called my NRA rep to let him know."

when will you understand that? ever? as soon as there is something of substance, there will be "debate." until then. it's just "bate and snicker."


Instead of keeping it on track or bringing true debate, some just make smarmy remarks & say nothing at all.

remedy please
 
remedy please

it's easy.

if you're trolling the online news looking for near-meaningless scraps to post, don't.

there would be a lot less threads here. but more good ones.

in fact, it could even get to the point where some of us who are not solely interested in an ideological jerk off might start initiating threads. but while it remains romper room, there's little point.
 
Sorry. What was I thinking, using current events to post threads? I wish you'd have straightened me up sooner.
 
no one is particularly afraid of the discussion

I beg to differ minkey. On this particular subject there are a lot of "true believers" who will brook no discussion whatsoever, from any quarter. I will grant you that in general they are not scientists but many of them do have the attention of the popular media. While 'peels sources are frequently less than stellar, there is in fact evidence that runs counter to what is usually presented as the "awful doom of global warming."
 
Back
Top