digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at dailytech.com

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

dailytech.com — OMG there really ARE scientists who don't believe in the religion of human-caused climate change!Who knew?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • notadiggtard, on 07/17/2008, -17/+22And the snowball of reason-pardon the pun-grows!People like ALgore will be a joke in 10 years(more than they are now).
  • strictnein, on 07/17/2008, -17/+20Are all of these physicists being paid by the oil companies too?
    "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..."

    I'm a scientist, where do I sign up for these oil company payments?
    • DevilInPgh, on 07/18/2008, -2/+8Christopher Monckton isn't a scientist. He's just a politician publishing in a forum that isn't peer-reviewed.
    • angryredplanet, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7"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."

      That's funny, according to PMOD at the World Radiation Center, the sun's irradiance has varied a minimal 2W/m^2 since 1978, the 30 years we have been directly measuring it. These irradiance fluctuations are proof of solar minimum and maximum periods that occur every 11 years or so:
      http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite ...
      There is no doubt that the sun is a primary driver of the Earth's climate, but if irradiance is to be the SOLE climate driver, ALL planets would reflect the same climate change as the irradiance change in the sun. This is clearly not demonstrated here. Also, the Earth's recent rapid warming does not fit the neat pattern represented by solar irradiance.

      Monckton is a joke - he merits no dicrediting from me.

      Strictnein, if you were truly a legitimate scientist, I doubt I'd be debating this with you now.
      • Terr01, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Just to pre-buttal a kookier talking point, it's not cosmic rays either.
  • BigBlueCarbon, on 07/17/2008, -16/+9they are being paid off by Big Physics, or somethin. Big Chill? Big Gay Al?
    Big Blank, like the Richard Hell song?
    what's that? you're a 20 somethin bush hatin digger dork and don't know who richard hell is?
  • greenfyre, on 07/17/2008, -26/+26What's wrong with this picture

    ""There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion" He is saying scientists, right? considerable presence of scientists? Did I get that right? am I misunderstanding something here?

    So the opening piece, the flagship, the big send off for this debate is by ... a former politician and business consultant?

    Where are the scientists? "Considerable presence within ... " and they couldn't get a scientist to write it? Could not find one scientist? Not one? Something is very very fishy here

    Just so we're clear:

    - "Physics and Society" is NOT a peer reviewed journal http://publish.aps.org/ it is a newsletter and this is an opinion piece, not a scientific paper;

    - it is for "a division of the American Physical Society" not the APS as a whole;

    - it does NOT represent opinion, stance, policy or position of the APS in any way, shape or form.

    Monckton's track record speaks for itself:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ... http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/monckton_o ... http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/monckton_cur ... http://www.desmogblog.com/deniers-*****-a-hoop-over ... http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-global-warming- ... http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton-a-p ... http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-fights-for-exxo ...

    Sunspots and solar cycles repeatedly debunked by scientists
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
    http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-f ...
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...

    AND the very same issue of Physics and Society http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/ha ...
    • strictnein, on 07/17/2008, -9/+17Did you even read the article? Or do you just have these posts ready to go so you can fire away?
      "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."

      I'll make this simple for you, since you failed to comprehend it to begin with:
      The members are all physicists. Many of the members disbelieve. Thus, physicists disbelieve. See how easy that was?

      I'm so tired of RealClimate. Their response to 90% of stuff they don't agree with is "But this doesn't agree with [insert previous study]". I mean, really? That's an argument against new information is that it doesn't mesh with their existing world view?
      • IVillageIdiot, on 07/17/2008, -9/+11Yes, he posts the same "Proof" all the time...
      • MorganMghee, on 07/18/2008, -12/+10Yes, he read the article, did a little research about the authors and the group behind it and posted the results for you. The reason he 'posts the same proof all the time' is that is the nature of the truth, it rarely changes. It is also the scientific method. You create a theory and everything after that is trying to disprove it, it's why people still quote Darwin.
        I'll be waiting for the people on that list to call or write in to say they didn't know they had been included on the list, that they disagree with the statement, just like happened with the last 'list'.
      • DevilInPgh, on 07/18/2008, -3/+12"NOT PEER-REVIEWED" means that the APS didn't vet his "research" to a peer-review board. Which means that for all I know, his science may be bogus. If a paper by a partisan hack in a non-peer-review FORUM is the best the anti-climate-change crowd has, then they really have nothing.

        For the record, most (read: all) scientists will never use a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed as the major emphasis of a paper. Jumping point worthy of investigation? Maybe, but it still ultimately comes down to being able to convince a board of peer reviewers.
      • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -9/+11The article is by a nobody journalist with an obsession on denying the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. It references a *newsletter* and not a 'paper', as the Dailytech article dishonestly describes it.

        The referenced *newsletter* is published by a widely discredited non-scientist ex-politician. Despite the impressive-looking formulae, it's worthless unless it is published and peer-reviewed. Given Monckton's scientific credentials (i.e. none), don't expect this work of fantasy to receive any serious consideration from the real climate scientists.

        Only the terminally stupid would get their scientific understanding from a source such as this.

        As for the APS "reversing its stance on climate change" - that is an outright lie by the deluded Dailytech 'journalist'. It's simply a debate, initiated by an APS editor. The 'debate' involves one British ex-politician with no scientific training, arguing against AGW. Whoopee!

        As for "many of its members disbelieve" - how many? 1000? 100? 10? And where's the proof? Regardless, science is not American Idol - it's not a voting competition or decided by 'personality'.

        In summary, all this amounts to is lies and a non-scientist on an ideological crusade to deny scientific consensus and reality.
    • vault, on 07/17/2008, -7/+15Can you personally, greenfyre, dispute any of his argument? As a "member of the science based community," you should have no problem doing so without needing to link to biased blogs, right? Just tell us what's wrong with his math and his conclusions.
      • MorganMghee, on 07/18/2008, -10/+10Why should he personally? Can you personally prove it? He relies on published papers and statements made by persons and groups he has found to be unbiased, reliable and knowledgeable. You are relying on a link and a 3rd party article, why don't you go research the people behind his links and tell us about the hidden industry that stands to gain from them while we lose. And don't try to tell me the clean energy industry...'cause we don't stand to lose from that.

        Why don't you do this, set up two terrariums with plants and water and bugs and a frog. Hook one up to the exhaust on your car. Run the car for 4 hours every day 6 days a week. Get back to me.
      • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -6/+9That's not the way it works, Einstein.

        greenfyre, you, me, none of us need personally 'prove' anything. That's the job of scientists who spend years, decades accumulating evidence, data and models that make sense of highly complex topics. Their findings and theories are then published in scientific journals for peer review. Other qualified experts in the field then study these published papers, looking for flaws and failures. The papers that come through that process can be accepted as the best information available - and referenced by those of us who want to understand the issues.

        If you have any intellectual honesty, you'll note that those who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate are a handful of, usually discredited, scientists and a mountain of politicians, journalists, and other non-scientists who produce the same scientifically discredited arguments again and again.

        Get aboard the clue train - it's a whole bunch better than the doofus bus.
      • vault, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5What are you guys covering up for that you need to be so defensive? You are constantly asking for any shred of evidence counter to anthropomorphic global warming, well here you go. I asked what is wrong here, what is SPECIFICALLY wrong with the argument in the linked paper.

        If you guys know as much about climate as you claim to, then I don't see why this is difficult. I'm simply interested to know.

        Secondly, I'm not a 'scientist with an ecology background' nor have I ever claimed to be, that would be greenfyre. So tell me what is wrong with what he's saying here, if any of you have the ability to do that?

        It's amazing you would even take the intellectual dishonesty route when it's clear none of you understand this paper yet are roundly dismissing it.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Ask the APS what is wrong with it, they have specifically said they disagree with it. "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
        http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/mo ...

        For myself, I found so much wrong with the first 2 paragraphs (http://digg.com/environment/IPCC_Predictions_Massi ... I decided to stop wasting my time right there.
      • TruthExposed, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Global warming will make housing more affordable by effectively increasing the supply of real estate. It will also bring food prices down for the same reason.
        It will make places like Russia, northern Canada, and Alaska much more habitable. Those 3 alone would greatly increase the available farmland and food production, not to mention the increased rainfall in vast arid areas like north Africa and inland Australia.
        It will also lead to Greenland once again living up to it's name - it was named as such by Eric the Red in the 900s because the earth was at the peak of a warming period when Greenland was colonized. The poor Vikings had to abandon their colonies due to global cooling a few hundred years later.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
        I bet those people who moved to the arctic in the 900s did not actually say "I have a WONDERFUL idea; lets move some place that is so cold that we will never be able to go outside without 100 lbs of clothing, and we will never see the ground, or eat fruit again!!!"
        Climate change happens slowly over time, even before exhaust pipes.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3An interesting collection of fairy tales completely unsupported by any known science and in most cases the exact opposite of what the science indicates, with the exception of the reference to the historical warming period and Greenland..
      • TruthExposed, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Supply and demand is a fairy tale? The only danger we are facing is a recurrence of the medieval warm period, and yes, more of the earth was habitable and available for agricultural production. Maybe I should buy up some beach front property in N Canada someplace.

        If you refer to the people in the arctic, that is not a fact based statement, but you can see that it was not intended to be such. What is your explanation for the Eskimos?
    • IVillageIdiot, on 07/17/2008, -9/+15I KNEW... greenfyre would be in here pissing up the rope again...

      Class let out early? Or... does Wi-Fi cover the whole campus?

      NOTE TO ALL OTHERS: The argument DOESN'T matter to the religious, and greenfyre has religion in a BIG sort of way..... his list of supporting links to the “Bible” just gets longer and longer and one has to wonder if ELF and/or ALF aren’t lurking somewhere nearby…..
      • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -8/+8I notice you challenge none of the arguments, only the man. That's known as a 'straw man' fallacious argument.

        It makes you look weak and stupid to those with a clue.
      • angryredplanet, on 07/18/2008, -6/+5"...his list of supporting links to the “Bible” just gets longer and longer..."

        It's enough to get you wondering if your on the correct side huh? Starting to second guess yourself in the face of the wall of evidence that appears to be growing in front of you?
    • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -11/+11Nice work, greenfyre. As usual, only the rabidly clueless are still clinging to this science-free newsletter as evidence of anything other than disinformation, propaganda and stupidity.

      We should also note that the Dailytech author of this piece produces a constant stream of nonsense that bears no relation to scientific reality: http://www.dailytech.com/blogs/~masher

      It's clear that all of those who jump on stories, such as this, have little or no understanding of scientific method or peer review. Critical thinking seems also to be thin on the ground. Many of them seem to view science as no different to American Idol - a 'personality' or a 'popular' vote defines the argument for them as long as it fits with the answer they want to hear. A little reading, intellectual curiosity and honesty would help clear the murky waters:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
      • BigManOnCampus, on 07/18/2008, -5/+7I believe it was the believers in AGW that created the popularity contest. It was them who claimed "The science is settled", because "We have consensus."

        Kind of silly to now say that science doesn't move forward by consensus when it was so easily allowed to "move forward" by those who believe in a consensus of people who believe in human-induced-climate-change.
      • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -4/+7You're mistaking the peer review process with a popularity contest. RTFA.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -4/+51) No one talked about science moving forward or not

        2) Agreed the "vote count" is silly,

        but it actually started because the Deniers' response to the overwhelming evidence has been (and continues to be) to haul out some doddering old fool who did very good work in the 1940s before the dementia set in, or a weatherman, or some former politician and scream "but not everyone agrees"

        You folks stay focused on actual real science and we will too.
    • ssn697, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4Wow, pretty long rant about lack of scientists, considering the fourth paragraph of the story:

      "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"

      Or doesn't he count either, because he is on "the other side"?

      Just sayin: You come off more as a Zealot, that someone who really wants to have a discussion.

      Is your assertion that there are no scientists questioning global warming causes?
    • kaelyiesta, on 07/18/2008, -3/+2Its funny you should question the authority of people who contradict the IPCC. I suggest you take a look at who exactly makes up the IPCC body itself and who was included in the IPCC 'consensus' of global warming. Specifically, take a look at how many are meteorologists, climatologists, biologists and physicists and how many have no business being a part of that consensus.

      And finally, I would recommend looking into the disagreement within the ranks of those IPCC scientists who actually have some authority on this subject. Not just a handful have been voicing their concerns over adherence to the peer review process and the scientific method from fellow members.

      Moral of the story: we as non scientists cannot know for certain a lot of the claims being made right now. The next best thing we can do is to take credible sources on their word. Make damn sure you are properly skeptical because most people and groups are not credible sources, no matter which side they are arguing for.
      • kaelyiesta, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2And just to be clear, I'm not agreeing with this non peer reviewed newsletter at all. The group it is connected to(which is peer reviewed) hasn't changed its stance yet, and I trust them more, currently:

        "APS Climate Change Statement

        APS Position Remains Unchanged

        The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

        "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

        An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

        Read: APS Climate Change Statement"
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -3/+1"Its funny you should question the authority of people who contradict the IPCC"

        Who does that where?

        Does anyone say "accept it because the IPCC does"? I point to the science, not to any insitutional authority, as do most of those who are in the science based community.
    • cashman57, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2I notice that the global warming believers still cannot find one single solitary computer model that concludes that man has caused global warming without omitting all data from volcanic activity.
      You can either believe in global warming or volcanoes, not both.
      • greenfyre, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Hey Cashman, your Ctl V is stuck - it keeps pasting the same comment in every thread even though you were given those links a week ago
      • greenfyre, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2 The Volcano and the Climate Model

        When it comes to predicting climate change, this team is hot! See how computer models allow NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies to understand—and predict—how volcanoes affect Earth's climate.
        http://earthbulletin.amnh.org/D/3/index.html
  • djepik, on 07/17/2008, -10/+7Now don't get me wrong, I hate Al Gore and his climate change propaganda as much as the next guy. But unfortunately this article has no more pull than a bad April Fools Joke.

    From the APS website (http://www.aps.org/):

    "The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
    Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

    Now I think that's a load of crap, but the fact remains that this article is worthless. But it's really funny that greenfyre spent all that time talking about how stupid APS is, when they actually share his opinion...
    • IVillageIdiot, on 07/18/2008, -10/+4I KNEW... greenfyre would be in here pissing up the rope again...

      Class let out early? Or... does Wi-Fi cover the whole campus?

      NOTE TO ALL OTHERS: The argument DOESN'T matter to the religious, and greenfyre has religion in a BIG sort of way..... his list of supporting links to the “Bible” just gets longer and longer and one has to wonder if ELF and/or ALF aren’t lurking somewhere nearby…..


      Well, kind of... my flatulence "changes" the Earth's climate too.... and let's not EVEN talk about Pop! But more to the point, how much “change”? Of what kind? To what end? With what effect/affects?

      What the good Viscount is saying, is that the IPCC is full of bull, which coincidentally enough is true of most if not all political bodies. They don’t make decision based on Science, they try to make consensus that is achievable based on the votes available at the time.

      Imagine if the Manhattan Project had of been run by the IPCC?!? The NAZIs would have created their version of the bomb while these guys were still voting on how to allocate the Recreational Fund and who can be trusted enough to dole it out to the constituents with the largest, juiciest bribes.

      If there is any Justice in the World, and granted I’m dubious, then Monckton will show the IPCC and the rest of the world there are still those who can think and act against the herd regardless of the technology the Shepard may use to muster them.



      I think Thucydides said it best:

      “For we both alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the question of justice enters only where the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.”


      And also, let’s not forget what the IVillageIdiot has said: "Politics is the creation of another reality, by some other means."
  • aki009, on 07/17/2008, -6/+16Read the underlying paper that the article has a link to. That's far more useful in explaining the point that APS has. Effectively the IPCC predictions and policy recommendations were based on models that are massively offbase.

    If you don't like the message bearer (or paper in this case), then go ahead and read the references of the paper, too. They are very illuminating.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7And that is based on information from reports and statements in 2001. Here is a link with the current report information for 2007. There are numerous statements and calculations made available that refute the claims that the models were off massively and offer the numbers for examination. I am exhausted however... so the ipcc link is all I have left in me http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm the others are easy to fine. browse some of greenfyre's links
  • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -18/+19"Did you even read the article?"

    Yeah, I read the article, and then I went to the APS site, and that is why I posted the APS links - are you suggesting THEY don't know what APS is doing???

    Everything I posted above is __from APS__ itself, not the ***** article.

    Here's some more - I'll make this simple for you, since you failed to comprehend it to begin with:

    The REAL APS policy on climate change http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

    "National Policy
    07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
    (Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

    Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

    They are NOT all Physicists http://www.aps.org/about/governance/constitution.c ...

    "But this doesn't agree with [insert previous study]". I mean, really? "

    Well, if all you've got is opinion instead of actual science, wtf do you expect them to say?

    "Yes, he posts the same "Proof" all the time..."

    It's not proof, it's evidence (I know, you've never looked so you have no idea). I should come up with a whole new set of evidence every time the Deniers post the identicle BS?

    "Can you personally, greenfyre, dispute any of his argument?"

    I agree with the American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
    and Hafemeister & Schwartz http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/ha ...

    It's right there on their home page "APS Climate Change Statement

    APS Position Remains Unchanged

    The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
    http://www.aps.org/

    So don't argue with me. Contact the American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/about/contact/index.cfm and let them know that they obviously got it ALL wrong about the American Physical Society, because some Denier blog said so - and who are you going to believe?

    Not one of you bothered to check the actual APS site, and the author of the ***** article is either clueless or lying, so you lads tell me which it is.
  • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -15/+18It's right there on their home page "APS Climate Change Statement

    APS Position Remains Unchanged

    The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
    http://www.aps.org/
    • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -7/+10Whoops, sorry, should have included the rest of the quote

      "An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."

      REPEAT: "This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed"
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/18/2008, -17/+16Thanks, greenfyre, for correcting these misguided people.
    • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -7/+11Hey, thank the APS,

      American Physicists - standing tall for science, truth, and good sense.

      I just threw up some links
  • alapoet, on 07/18/2008, -15/+12Careful, greenfyre, or you're gonna restore my faith in humanity, rationality, and reason.
  • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -10/+8So some scientists dared to disagree with the Global Warming Propaganda, and were "encouraged" to change their views and agree with the APS at large, APS is in tight with the government BTW, check out their programs for working with congress:
    http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200106/con ...

    On the take? probably.

    Check out Agenda 21 and tell me the thugs that have hijacked our government don't have an interest in pushing this GW Hoax. http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce36.htm

    The Science behind the GW Hoax is shaky, the political motivation is FIRM.
    • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -6/+6"So some scientists"

      Who?
      • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -9/+3Why, so you can report them and get them fired?

        Greenfyre, what about the Political motivation for this GW Hoax? Or do you like Global Tyranny?
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -3/+8Biologist,

        I actually know and understand the science

        You could too if you tried actually looking at it
      • Fordi, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6@bohemianowl:
        Data without identification is equivalent to "some guy said..."

        If you don't have names, and can't reproduce the results, you're making it up.
    • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -5/+3check out http://www.aip.org/gov/cf.html

      The American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics Congressional Science Fellowships.....

      "Fellows do not act as representatives of their sponsoring society; during the Fellowship term, their only responsibility is to the congressional office in which they work."

      These "fellows" get to rub shoulders with the most corrupt bastards on the planet..... ethics my ass!
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -5/+7So when you thought they were deniers they were the most credible, trustworthy society going, but now that it is clear that they are and have consistently been climate change proponents they are corrupt scum of the earth?

        And if you again believed they were skeptics, they woud be ....?
      • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -7/+3What is with this label "deniers" you put on people? sounds so religious.

        What the hell is your game? Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said any of that crap.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -5/+5It's not in quotes nor do I say you said it. I attempt to reflect 2 visions of the APS which may be based on whether they deny climate change or not.

        Would you be saying "..... ethics my ass!" if you still thought they had officially denied climate change?
      • Fordi, on 07/18/2008, -4/+6@GF: You realize he doesn't even notice the lack of meritorious valuation in his statement belies his ignorance, yeah?

        @BO: Locate and post some results from peer reviewed journals that refute anthropic climate change, or identify errors in the underpinning logic that brought supporting papers to support anthropic climate change. Until you can do that, your irrational bias against climatologists as corrupt labels you as a denier.

        When science gets controversial, punditry becomes irrelevant; actual research is what becomes the guiding force of reasoned opinion. This is because, of course, in scientific work, pundits are *not* to be trusted: they cherry pick the research to point at their own agenda. Scientists are trained against bias, and are in a career that will pretty much dismiss them if they show bias in their work.

        Mind you, in science, punditry is *always* irrelevant. I'm just talking about to my opinion.
      • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -6/+3greenfyre , I only have one vision of the APS and their top heavy organization- they are akin to the "State Science Institute" and their opinion is worthless because of their tight relationship with the corrupt government. It's obviously a conflict of interest.

        You probably never even looked at Agenda 21 or the Millennium Agenda, have you?

        Fordi, I am not going to dignify your rubbish with a response.
      • Fordi, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Fordi: "Valid point."
        bohemianowl: "Irrational dismissal."
        Fordi: "Yeah, whatever. Moving on, pointless twit."
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Not only looked at Agenda 21, analysed it as an invited expert to speak to my Federal Government about it ... does that count?
    • MorganMghee, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8Why would they say 'representing 50,000 physicists' when they knew they didn't, when they knew the implication? Deception. Why won't the ones who don't believe the idea actually make a list and include their concerns so they can be examined? You know, sciencey stuff....?
      • Dauntless1, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Cause they'd have to bring proof. Ain't gonna happen because most Denier proof consists of " I don't want to believe it, so it's not happening." Reminds me of Adam West in Family Guy:)
  • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -7/+12I find it interesting that the "anti" responses relating to this paper are not addressing the paper itself, or its references, but merely discuss anything and everything but the content of it. Personal attacks against the author. References to a position the APS took last year without the benefit of this paper. Claims that the paper is not peer reviewed when in fact it is primarily a combination of existing sources that have been peer reviewed. And so on.

    It seems to me that the inability of the "anti" responses to address the content of the paper and the inevitability of its conclusions only highlights that the content is accurate and strengthens the case for its conclusions. I'd say it poses a real problem to the world view of some, and hence the responses to anything but the content. Par for the course for some.
    • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -4/+71) "References to a position the APS took last year " As stated twice above, the APS has restated it's position on their home page specifically disavowing any connection to this paper and explicitly stating that the paper is not peer reviewed. http://www.aps.org/

      2) The daileytech article (the one which this post is actually about) makes a great deal of the papers legitmacy based on i) support of the APS, ii) peer review. Thus both of those points are germane and appropriate to expose as frauds.

      3) If you have looked at the paper you will note that the math is quite complex. I imagine it will be a few days before competent scientists can review it. When they share their judgement I will defer to them as this aspect of climate science is not my expertise.
      • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -4/+31. The APS takes a position through a formal committee. The web site merely repeats that position that was taken last year.

        2. Recommend that you read the references.

        3. Look forward to additional real information on this topic.
    • tasine, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2akioo9, you have hit the nail on the head. I am not an expert on climate change, but I do have the ability to think and reason. There is NO reason whatsoever to assume that we are "causing" global warming. The earth may be warming, or not, but one thing I do know is that cycles in nature normally occur that man can do absolutely nothing about. LIsten up, people, we do not live in a static world! You may wish the world would stand still, but wishing it so just doesn't cut it. Those who think people are the cause of global warming please write me and explain how the Grand Canyon came to be, please. Please explain the planthouse effect the world has been through in its distant past. Note that all this occurred before man's short life on this earth ever began. Nature is nature is nature, and people who try to make it something else are on the verge of being nutty. On second thought, they ARE nutty. So many people would be so much happier if they could just accept what IS rather than WHAT MIGHT BE. Me? I try to change what I think is reasonable and the rest is up to God. My life is quite happy. I sincerely wish more of you were happy. But as long as you eat pie in the sky that won't happen.
    • angryredplanet, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Can you prove that Monckton's paper ISN'T fraudulent? You can demonstrate that his complex math is 100% correct?

      If not, then you've made yourself a prime example of the "anti" authors you discredit for using the same debating tactic you just have. Does it disprove the well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing? No. Does it change the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change? No. Are you bringing any new scientific information to the table? No.

      Goodbye.
  • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -10/+9"explaining the point that APS has"

    The APS is disavowing the article "This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." http://www.aps.org/ , so it seems that it is the views of Jeffrey Marque alone.

    The APS itself is quite clear about it's view of climate change which they have restated on their homepage "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
    • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -8/+3Using the same argumentation nothing that algoracle states should be considered in any form for any purpose, as his presentations have not been peer reviewed.

      Simply repeating statements from the past will not invalidate new information that _is_ peer reviewed, and listed under the references to the underlying paper that we've been discussing here.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -4/+71) Who get's their information from Al Gore?

        2) The point that Jeffrey Marque's opinion is not the APS's has what to do with Gore?

        3) Gore presents peer reviewed science. You are welcome to check anything he says and if it is false say so

        4) If someone claims to be presenting science, don't accept anything from anyone that is not referenced - that's just common sense.

        And the same issue of Physics and Society has an article by actual scientists that says the opposite of Monckton http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/ha ... - it is as new ... so which is right?

        He refers to peer reviewed literature, but that literature does not claim to invalidate climate change. It is Monckton's interpretation and/or use of their work that needs to be reviewed.

        If you know of any credible (peer reviewed) science that seriously challenges anthropogenic climate change please share it.
      • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2"[algoracle] presents peer reviewed science."

        So does this paper.

        "If you know of any credible (peer reviewed) science that seriously challenges anthropogenic climate change please share it."

        For the umpteenth time: read the references from the paper at hand. There's plenty of challenge right there. The gist of this paper is that it put them together in one place.

      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4None of those references that I am familiar with dispute anthropogenic climate change. Some have raised questions that have since been addressed (eg Spencer, Christy).

        I am afraid you will have to be more specific. Cite one as disputing anthropogenic climate change and then we can have a look at it.
    • Gregbertt, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5greenfyre, let me help you gain some perspective on your position in this debate by giving you some perspective on me. I do not mock you, disrespect you, nor can I personally even say with one hundred percent certainty that you are wrong. On many (not all) issues I come down to the right of center. On some issues (but not many) you will find me to the left of center. I am, however, what you call a "Global Warming Denier". I would not care to bandy about in a link-pasting war with you, so let me just come at you from a different angle.

      I would like to point something out to you that seems to get overlooked by almost everyone in this debate:

      You say: Pollution is bad
      I say: I absolutely agree.

      We're now what I call 'on the same page'. At this point you are on the same page as just about everyone. We all agree. We're all happy that we all agree.

      You say: We need to stop polluting the environment and become better stewards of the environment.
      I say: I absolutely agree.

      Guess what? We're still on the same page. At this point you are still on the same page as just about everyone. We all agree. We're all happy that we all agree.

      You say: We need to do everything in our power to stop polluting the planet - Right! Now! It is priority one, before anything else.
      I say: I mostly agree.

      We're still on the same page. At this point you are still on the same page with many (maybe most), but sadly not everyone. Many of us agree - but not all.

      You say: (Allow me to be a bit crass) OMFG Global Warming bla bla bla hyperbole bla bla bla jump up and down, stomp our feet bla bla bla.
      I say: Nope. This is where I get off of the train.

      We are no longer on the same page, and that sucks. There is a complete polarization at this point, and I have a very strong sense that your position is far outnumbered by mine. Not sure about that - it just seems that way to me. The point is, do you see how far most everyone goes on the same page? Why can't it just be enough with 'you folks' to let us all agree that pollution is bad, we need to change, a clean planet is better than a dirty one and just let the damn technology catch up with the ideal? It all has to be done now now now. I admire that conviction, but the 'to hell with the consequences' attitude about all of this ignores reality. In my humble opinion Global Warming (or anthropomorphic climate change - you can call it what you want) is hyperbole, and was cooked up to force the issue. It has the same stink as global cooling did to me at that time.

      I will not sit here and hate all over you or your position, but I think it's a shame that it goes just that little bit too far. Then look what happens.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+8"You say: (Allow me to be a bit crass) OMFG Global Warming bla "

        No, that is not what I say. If you really check my posts I say "Here is the science, and this is what it says"

        I can't change the science and I won't lie about it

        Unless you are claiming that I misrepresent the science, in which case it is a simple act (since I provide links) to show that I have done so and correct me - no big deal.

        Show me different (credible) science and I will report it as honestly and accurately as I can.

        BUT - if the science is as it seems to be, and I am reporting it accurately, what do you suggest I should do?
      • MorganMghee, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4You know that thing you talked about, that one thing that drives an otherwise down the center guy just to the left of center? That thing is Humans contributing to global climate change for Greenfyre. It's a pretty important issue, after all, you were on the same page until he went over the edge of center. And it's not like, as was demonstrated with this article, there isn't a lot of work to do ferreting out willful deception. It's a good quality, and it's a shame exuberance pushes people away but it's not uncommon. Great things rarely get done by people that hardly care.
      • Gregbertt, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Ugh. I said 'anthropomorphic' above but meant 'anthropogenic'. At any rate:

        I do not intend to imply that you misrepresent the science. Nothing in my post above claims that you are being willfully deceptive. That is not the point. It would be a judgment upon you that I am not qualified to make - nor would I wish to do so. I do think that the point of this article was that the science was being misrepresented - but certainly not by you or I.

        Look, there is a great deal of interest in this topic. Passion and heated debate from both sides, often by those who spend more time poking holes in the other side of the argument than in remembering to behave themselves. I have no interest in that. I have interest in a balanced, objective look at the issue.

        I do not believe there is sufficient data to form the conclusion that Global Warming requires. Oh, there's a lot of data - yes. I have read all of the talking points. From both sides. I don't really believe that the scientific method is being accurately applied, though. Take the first step: Make an observation. Man is polluting and making a heck of a mess. Now the second step, form a hypothesis based upon that observation. Well, we know about the concept and effects of greenhouse gasses, so we hypothesize that mad-made pollution is contributing to the natural greenhouse effect, and we follow that to what we think is the logical conclusion that the earth will eventually rise in temperature as an effect of the increased greenhouse gasses. Man-made gasses.

        At this point you are on the same page as just about everyone. We all agree. We're all happy that we all agree. Those are the facts, the progression through the scientific method so far.

        I think that's where the scientific method has been subverted, however. How can we truly, accurately and completely test that hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt? Ice cores, yes. Glacial records, fossil records, yes. But everything we have to date makes up only part of the picture. We can't truly know because we only have circumstantial evidence to go on, we weren't there for the eons which we are trying to examine to get this data. I think eventually the technology will allow us to do that, but not yet. The trouble is now twofold though - incomplete data for analysis, and the fact that what this data actually tells us is clearly in dispute at every turn. We just can't jump ahead here and form an accurate conclusion based on the contested results from the analysis.of the incomplete data. We just don't get to do that in the scientific method.

        I'm not even suggesting that Global Warming is wrong. There's just not enough there to convince me, and I 'just have a hunch' that it is a grand exaggeration. I typically react to those who insist upon it's validity as if it is undisputed fact, when that simply cannot be the case. Not yet.

        What do I suggest you do? I don't know. Keep at it, I guess, but keep an open mind and admit that there is a chance - no matter how small you perceive it to be - that it could go the other way. *That* is science.

        And Morgan: Great things rarely get done by people who hardly care, yes. But don't misinterpret good scientific doubt as a lack of concern. That's not a fair judgment of us Deniers. I thing Doubters is a better term anyway.
      • MorganMghee, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5I don't doubt 'good' scientific concern, I rail against deceptive scientific factiness designed to alter perceptions and an sway public opinion when it comes to life and health.
      • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7Gregbertt,

        You would seem to be the very first rational, reasonable and coherent person from the 'denial gang' that I've seen. Well done. Seriously.

        I'll just address one of your points: "I do not believe there is sufficient data...". Why? Your disbelief is not an argument.

        Either you are not aware that every national science academy of every industrialized country on the planet confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change, or you have reason to believe their data / evidence / testimony is flawed or fraudulent.

        So, if it's not ignorance of the evidence, you must produce a massive, global conspiracy theory or evidence of one of the most amazing scientific blunders in the history of humanity, involving tens of thousands of climate scientists.

        I fail to see how anyone not blinded by political ideology (which almost every AGW denier suffers) or wilful ignorance can deny the massive global scientific consensus.

        Also, when you start looking critically at the output from the denial team, it is stuffed full of lies and discredited claims - which are repeated ad nauseum (volcanoes, CO2 is good, it's happened before, etc.). Anyone with the least bit of life experience should know that when a group needs to resort to lies, propaganda and disinformation to win the battle, they've got nothing.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7"I do not believe there is sufficient data to form the conclusion that Global Warming requires."

        Have you looked? What is this belief based on?

        "what this data actually tells us is clearly in dispute at every turn"

        It is? references to real science please.

        "I think that's where the scientific method has been subverted,"

        No. All of the real science follows standard practice.

        "There's just not enough there to convince me,"

        The volume of data is staggering? what would be convincing?

        " and I 'just have a hunch' that it is a grand exaggeration."

        Rwanda, the Holocaust, Cambodia ... time and again the most dire portrayals that 'coudn't possibly be true' turned out to be inadequate to describe the full scale of what was going on.

        I sympathize with the gut inclination to seek the middle ground, but first you must critically examine the evidence because often enough the middle ground is wildly wrong.

        "admit that there is a chance"

        Of course there is a chance. If I put a loaded shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger there is a chance that it won't fire, for any number of reasons.

        But while acknowledging the "chance" I think it wise to look at what is most probable given all the data and bet with the odds, not against them.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4@ Gregbertt
        "I think that's where the scientific method has been subverted,"

        I think you will find this helpful http://digg.com/environment/Skeptic_or_Denier_How_ ...
      • Gregbertt, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2Aaaand this is where I get off the train.

        Rwanda? The Holocaust? Cambodia?

        ad Misericordiam. Not the first logical fallacy in play here, just the one that usually pushes me on to greener pastures. Your passionate diatribe is filled with logical fallacies and questionable assertions. If much of the Global Warming flock did not so quickly resort to non sequitur and hyperbole it would be much easier for each side to take something from the other. Every single discussion about this subject spirals away from objectivity. That's not a personal attack, mind you - everyone (myself included) is guilty of that to some degree as a function of the inadequacies of verbal communication. It's just what renders the rest of this discussion invalid.

        Many of the above replies seem to ignore the entire body of evidence to the contrary of your positions, as if I, the lone Global Warming Denier, stand against the entire scientific community and the wide world. That is logical fallacy at play because it completely ignores the existence of the science to the contrary. I've picked my side of the issue based upon the body of scientific work that I trust to be the closest to the scientific method. Everyone is free to do that. It is what ensures healthy debate.

        Alas, we had a good go at it.
      • Gregbertt, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1@ monoa:

        Yep. It's just a belief for me at this point. Not intended to be an argument but to provide rational perspective from the other side of the coin. I take perspective from the other side of the coin as often as I can, as it helps me to understand others and form what I hope are well reasoned opinions. It's not intended to be an argument because it is far more interesting to me to state my opinion than to invalidate someone else's.
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3"Your passionate diatribe is filled with logical fallacies and questionable assertions. "

        1) Cite them please.

        2) Adress the point within the context it was given, specifically that the "middle" can often be false. It is you who has jumped to the non sequitor

        "the entire body of evidence to the contrary of your positions"

        WHAT evidence???? Unlesss you are delusional how can you not ignore what doesn't exist?

        "I've picked my side of the issue based upon the body of scientific work that I trust to be the closest to the scientific method."

        What work? Where?

        In very reasonable tones and nice language you make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims which you seem to embrace on faith and cannot seem to grasp that you may be absolutely wrong.

        Substantiate your claims if they are true, and if they are not true, why are you making them?

        "It's just a belief for me at this point"

        Then that is faith and has no place in the science section of Digg.
      • Gregbertt, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1"...Then that is faith and has no place in the science section of Digg."

        My point exactly. Please go back and re-read the section outlining how you depart from the scientific method:

        "...We just can't jump ahead here and form an accurate conclusion based on the contested results from the analysis of the incomplete data."

        *That* is what a belief in Global Warming requires at this point, and *That* makes belief in Global Warming a faith, and yes, it has no place in the science section of Digg.
  • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -6/+3"I am afraid you will have to be more specific. Cite one as disputing anthropogenic climate change and then we can have a look at it."

    I'll quote some from the paper itself:


    NCDC. 2006.Global annual land and ocean mean temperature anomalies. Data downloadable from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat.

    CESS, R.D., M.-H Zhang, G. L. Potter, H. W. Barker, R. A. Colman, R.A. Dazlich, A.D. Del Genio, M Esch, J. R. Fraser, V. Galin, W. L. Gates, J. J. Hack, W. J. Ingram, J. T. Kiehl, A. A. Lacis, H. Le Treut, Z-X Li, X. Z. Liang, J.-F, Mahfouf, B. J. McAvaney, K. P. Meleshko, J.-J. Morcrette, D. A. Randall, E. Roeckner, J.-F. Royer, A. P. Sokolov, P. V. Sporyshev, K. E. Taylor, W.-C. Wang and R. T. Wetherald. 1993. Uncertainties in CO2 radiative forcing in atmospheric general circulation models. Science 262: 1252-1255.

    HATHAWAY, David H., and Wilson, Robert M. 2004. What the Sunspot Record Tells us about Space Climate. Solar Physics 224: 5-19.

    LYMAN, John M., Willis, J.K., and Johnson, G.C. 2006. Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 33:L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.

    McKITRICK, R.R. 2007. Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on global gridded climate data. J. Geophys. Res. (Atmospheres) [in press].

    SOLANKI, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M. and Beer, J. 2005. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years. Nature 436: 174 (14 July 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436174b.

    SOON, W.W.-H.2005. Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years.Geophys. Res. Lett. 32: L16712 | doi:10.1029/2005GL023429.

    THORNE, P. W., D. E. Parker, B. D. Santer, M. P. McCarthy, D. M. H. Sexton, M. J. Webb, J. M. Murphy, M. Collins, H. A. Titchner, and G. S. Jones. 2007. Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy? Geophysical Research Letters 34: L16702, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875.
    • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -3/+7All you've listed are a bunch of papers and scientists who have published information that Monckton has supposedly referenced. They do not necessarily deny or contradict the massive scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 07/18/2008, -5/+4And neither do the thousands of papers used to support the notion of human-induced climate change. Individual papers do not make such stances. Your standards should be the same on both fronts.
      • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5No, but the assessment of the data by every national science academy of every industrialized country on the planet confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change. I'd need 40' of tinfoil wrapped around my head to ignore that.

        In the absence of me personally spending the next 20 years learning the science, analyzing all the data (which would most likely be impossible for an individual) and publishing my findings for peer review to ensure I've not made any mistakes, I'm going to go with the best scientific recommendations available. Those recommendations are clear and loud.

        To do anything else would be really, deeply stupid. It would also be a display of monumental Dunning Kruger effect - especially when people, such as greenfyre, are placing the science under your nose. All you have to do is click and read to cure the dumb.
      • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -4/+3"assessment of the data by every national science academy of every industrialized country on the planet confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change"

        Did you know that the first thing a scientist learns is to never use terms such as "every", because in most cases there is no way to substantiate such a statement? Your use of it tells me that you have an open mind on this topic, and that you are willing and able to revisit your personal conclusions should there be new information available. (/sarcasm)
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5@ Bigmanoncampus

        "Your standards should be the same on both fronts."

        They are. These are presented as refuting climate change and monoa merely points out that they do not.

        @aki009 "there is no way to substantiate such a statement"

        But easy to disprove, so is there a reputable science academy as described that does not fit his description?

        "should there be new information available. "

        If some shows up we can see how monoa responds to it, but since since the Monckton paper is difficult to interpret and Monckton's record is very poor, is it not reasonable for monoa to be skepitcal until he has more information?
      • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2Some of the dissenting voices can be heard here:

        http://www.globalwarmingbs.com/2008/06/27/more-tha ...
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5The Deniers have posted this fraud 50? 60? times, so I'll keep posting why it's nonsense.

        This petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ...

        It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ... the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ...

        Of tobacco apologist Frederick Seitz see http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2863 (enough said)

        Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren't many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age - like there's been no updates in the science recently?
        If I may quote http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2863
        "The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:

        The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

        Notice how Climate Change proponents never cite or source Gore? it is only the Deniers who do so. Proponents refer to climate scientists, climate science, scientific journals and blogs. Deniers do not wish to deal with the actual science (or more likely, cannot) so they ignore this and always return to attacking Gore. As if that proved anything? Totally irrelevant.

        http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/525/31-000-sci ...

        Oh yeah, here's another example of Denier math 19=500 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5 ...

        Here is a collection of links that talk about the actual science
        http://plum.com/greenfyre.1721075/climatechangelin ...

        For a complete debunking of the Denier myths see http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

        And on and on; it's a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone's time.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3It is very telling, Greenfyre, the battles you choose.

        When I point out some basic truths about how science is supposed to work, you generally avoid even talking about that, and reiterate how XXXX is an oil-industry shill (attack the messenger fallacy), or YYYY has a track record of disagreeing (another fallacy).

        Science is supposed to work in a fashion where alternate explanations are encouraged in the face of a lack of first principles and data is the only thing that matters. Now, in climate science we have a field where the numbers spit out by simulations are the only thing that matters, and somehow they're the same thing as raw data. It's a joke.

        You nearly always end your arguments with a large number of internet links explaining why you are correct and this discussion is a waste of time. Normal, functional scientists actively encourage alternate viewpoints on their work, particularly when the results are preliminary. You seem to attack it as if only your viewpoint is possible BECAUSE all these other places on the internet say so.

        That speaks of a very poor understanding of how science is supposed to operate, but then I would expect that from someone who frequents realclimate.
    • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -4/+6OK, let's see what we have here.

      The CESS et al paper is ancient history, there is much more current and accurate work.

      HATHAWAY, SOLANKI, SOON etc The solar isue has been looked at closely and the hypothesis is considered disproved.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
      http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-f ...
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...

      Sun Could Cause 15% To 20% Of Effects Of Climate Change, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/08071 ...

      The issue of surface temperatures, wind shear etc is hellishly complex and far from resolved. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ... for a good discussion. Be sure to go through the comments section as a lot of other relevant science is brought in and discussed.
      • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3You missed the most important source, the actual climate data, that I listed first. The problem it creates for your favorite link-to target (realclimate) is that the theories expressed there don't seem to match the actual measurements. Some of the "ancient history" that you refer to is actually more on the money than what you call "more current and accurate".
      • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2I need you to be more specific and provide references. This is a fairly vague claim which may nor may not be true, but there is no way to tell.
  • DevilInPgh, on 07/18/2008, -5/+11This paper makes as much sense as Al Gore publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Since he hasn't, and neither has Monckton (FPS is NOT a peer-reviewed journal) (oh, and did I mention that Monckton isn't a scientist either?), I'm going to bury this BS as inaccurate.
  • monoa, on 07/18/2008, -5/+9The article is by a nobody journalist with an obsession on denying the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. It references a *newsletter* and not a 'paper', as the Dailytech article dishonestly describes it.

    The referenced *newsletter* is published by a widely discredited non-scientist ex-politician. Despite the impressive-looking formulae, it's worthless unless it is published and peer-reviewed. Given Monckton's scientific credentials (i.e. none), don't expect this work of fantasy to receive any serious consideration from the real climate scientists.

    Only the terminally stupid would get their scientific understanding from a source such as this.

    As for the APS "reversing its stance on climate change" - that is an outright lie by the deluded Dailytech 'journalist'. It's simply a debate, initiated by an APS editor. The 'debate' involves one British ex-politician with no scientific training, arguing against AGW. Whoopee!

    As for "many of its members disbelieve" - how many? 1000? 100? 10? And where's the proof? Regardless, science is not American Idol - it's not a voting competition or decided by 'personality'.

    In summary, all this amounts to is lies and a non-scientist on an ideological crusade to deny scientific consensus and reality.
  • aki009, on 07/18/2008, -6/+2To all those who complain that the paper by Monckton is hogwash, I recommend reading the document carefully. You will find that he is merely pointing out that the IPCC equations, models and predictions aren't backed up by observations. He then proceeds to use the same IPCC equations to offer an alternative that would explain the current observations, but which also brings with the conclusion that man made CO2 emissions are not a significant factor in temperature variations.

    Yes, it's difficult to get into the equations, but once you do, it's obvious that he has a very strong argument, mostly combining published sources, all of which are neatly referenced.

    It all boils down to this sentence: "Since absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, Figure 7 confirms what the recent temperature record implies: the causative link between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature cannot be as strong as the IPCC has suggested."
  • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -3/+7UPDATE: The APS not only does not endorse the paper, they explicitly disagree with it

    "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/mo ...
  • JigoroKano, on 07/18/2008, -3/+8I had to lol hard guys. I am an APS member and I would have never even heard about this non-event (forum posts, seriously patheitc) if it weren't for digg. Ok so I don't read the newsletter so often, but the idea that this organization, which represents me as a scientist, denies scientific consensus is absurd.

    Aside from the string theorists, the physics community is the most hardcore scientific community there is.
    We've actually already had physicists cross over examine the work of the climatologists.
    We gave the world Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman for god's sake.

    If you want to read the opinions of a real Skeptical physicist then go here
    http://www.bobpark.org/
    Lot's of stuff to be skeptical about, AGW isn't one of them.
    • greenfyre, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7LOL!

      "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be."

      How can one resist? 8-)
  • toasterhead2k, on 07/18/2008, -3/+7Oh man - you science deniers are a constant source of comedy. Sometimes I almost feel sorry for you, the way your every argument is so brutally and thoroughly trounced by the facts of climate change science.
  • TruthExposed, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Is global warming a Republic, where only certain people in certain fields get to vote???
    • greenfyre, on 07/19/2008, -3/+3Any one who has something accurate, true and relevant to contribute is always heartily welcome.

      Those who bring frauds, lies and distortions can expect to have them shown to be such.

      But at the end of the day it is science, not American Idol. As they say, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
    • cashman57, on 07/19/2008, -3/+3No it is an exclusive club where anyone who believes in volcanoes are excluded.
      • greenfyre, on 07/19/2008, -2/+2 The Volcano and the Climate Model

        When it comes to predicting climate change, this team is hot! See how computer models allow NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies to understand—and predict—how volcanoes affect Earth's climate.
        http://earthbulletin.amnh.org/D/3/index.html
  • Lynx55, on 07/18/2008, -3/+4I just cannot believe someone actually sent me something to digg FOR the deniers...ha ha ha ha. Al Gore is one of my heroes...don't even try.
  • cashman57, on 07/19/2008, -5/+2NCDC. 2006.Global annual land and ocean mean temperature anomalies-noted absence of data regarding oceanic volcanic activity because they don't know how many volcanoes there are in the oceans or when they erupted or what relevance they have to the anomalies and all Antarctic volcanic data has been scrubbed in order to obtain results indicating man caused global warming.
    Thus any actual peer review of the warming theory has no way to be applied in reality where volcanoes do exist, do erupt, and do change the climate for years.
    I could show the coming ice age by omitting all data from summer. It would be as accurate as the global warming theory which excludes all data from volcanic activity.
    • greenfyre, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4 The Volcano and the Climate Model

      When it comes to predicting climate change, this team is hot! See how computer models allow NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies to understand—and predict—how volcanoes affect Earth's climate.
      http://earthbulletin.amnh.org/D/3/index.html
  • greenfyre, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3UPDATE: The Science - All Monckton has done is a slight reworking of his old work already debunked 2 yrs ago http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...

    There is nothing really new, and it isn't science
  • aki009, on 07/19/2008, -2/+2Here is an illustration of the problem with the CMMGW (Church of Man Made Global Warming) activists on Digg:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUwB7mLypq0

    Enjoy.
  • detokaal, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2"Peer Reviewed" is making me sick because you give it some sort of weight during a debate about global warming. You might as well say "Prepaid Science" since the vast majority of the man-made global warming groupies get their funding from the same foundations and individuals.

    It has always been interesting to me, that research showing either...
    1. Global warming is not occurring
    2. Global cooling is imminent
    3. Global warming is not influenced by mankind

    ...is produced by individual, independent high quality researchers and their flawless methodology. The authors have a life-time of research behind them and impeccable credentials. Then, suddenly, when the other side sees a threat to their funding, their old friends become fringe lunatics.
  • Rich711, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2The saddest thing is that people will die of AIDS and Malaria because the UN cuts funding to solve those problems pursuing a problem no one can prove let alone prove the "solutions" they are spending the money on.

    People are already dying from "Global Warming" but not because of any change in temperature and certainly not from CO2
  • PartyLess, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2"The American Physical Society" has not changed their position. If you go to their website, it clearly states it. The only thing these bloggers did expose is how desperate they are to swindle the American people out of the benefits of real science by shoving creationism down our throats.
  • teyesahr, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0Did any of you unscientific boneheads bother to actually look at "Lord Monckton's" (why not "Dr. Monckton", eh?) paper, linked from that article? If you did, you would find the following disclaimer at the top which, I believe, speaks for itself:

    "'The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.' "

    You can see it yourself here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/mo ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.