50,000 new Global Warming diniers

[HOZ]

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000

The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

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.

BTW: How many trees has Gore really planted?

[llama64]

The key rhetorical detail to notice here is the use of the term "global warming". It's a politically charged term that holds very little meaning in scientific circles.

I've said this before, any debate dealing with environmental changes should be wary of the language used. Climate Change is a far more accurate term and is one that most of the relevant scientists use in their research.

It's still a good idea to cut down on energy consumption overall.

[driveway]

Actually, a very meager amount of research would have found this disclaimer on the website of the APS regarding the article (note it is not called a paper but an article) in question:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Article can be found here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

[Table 5]

Does it really not just make common sense that pumping coal, car smoke, and and other pollutants into the air cant be anything but bad for the earth? It's sort of like people thinking that smoking doesn't do any damage to your lungs.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by driveway

Actually, a very meager amount of research would have found this disclaimer on the website of the APS regarding the article (note it is not called a paper but an article) in question:



Article can be found here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Good job HOZ! I'll make sure to take your posts with a grain of salt on this subject...

Even at the bottom of the linked article:

Updated 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.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Does it really not just make common sense that pumping coal, car smoke, and and other pollutants into the air cant be anything but bad for the earth? It's sort of like people thinking that smoking doesn't do any damage to your lungs.

No one says it is anything else. Since China is the source of 2/3rds of the worlds increase in CO2 production yet in the same time frame the Earth's temperatures has decreased gives weight to the argument that "Climate Change" is a natural not man-made problem.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Good job HOZ! I'll make sure to take your posts with a grain of salt on this subject...

Even at the bottom of the linked article:

APS is opening the debate this topic. The scientific consensus myth is over because, 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.

Dogma is being challenged.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Dogma is being challenged.

The paper as I read it first claims that you cannot model the climate, then proceeds to show why the model the "consensus" is using is "wrong", and why *his* model is right. I quote:

"The climate is “a complex, non-linear, chaotic object” that defies long-run prediction of its future states (IPCC, 2001), unless the initial state of its millions of variables is known to a precision that is in practice unattainable, as Lorenz (1963; and see Giorgi, 2005) concluded in the celebrated paper that founded chaos theory – “Prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”."

#1: He obviously doesn't understand chaos theory like he thinks he does, as if he did, he would understand the difference between predicting weather and predicting climate.

#2: If he doesn't think the climate can be modelled, why does he then spend the rest of the paper trying to remodel it?

#3: This Monckton fellow isn't a scientist, he has a degree in classical languages (ie Latin - Greek). While that doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong, the fact that his paper was not only not peer-reviewed but is posted with a disclaimer, means that your thread title "50 000 new Global Warming deniers" is a farce - NONE of these 50 000 "deniers" reviewed this paper and agreed with it, so you're not just overstating by 49 999 scientists, you've gone whole-hog and missed by a whole 50 000 out of 50 000!

[guzzy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Does it really not just make common sense that pumping coal, car smoke, and and other pollutants into the air cant be anything but bad for the earth? It's sort of like people thinking that smoking doesn't do any damage to your lungs.

i suppose you ride a bike and heat your house with body heat only right?

Until then, quit complaining.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Lord Monckton has been on the radio here in Calgary a few times...interesting guy.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by guzzy

i suppose you ride a bike and heat your house with body heat only right?

Until then, quit complaining.

haha..wha??

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No one says it is anything else. Since China is the source of 2/3rds of the worlds increase in CO2 production yet in the same time frame the Earth's temperatures has decreased gives weight to the argument that "Climate Change" is a natural not man-made problem.

So massive amounts of air pollution is totally a-okay with you then?

The legacy you want to leave your children with?


I wish the 'climate change' debate was not so linked with the 'pollution debate'. (They are linked, but far from the same thing)

How can activily and aggressively reducing toxins from air/water/earth be a bad thing for the earth/people? How can encouraging sustainable lifestyles be a bad thing for the earth/people?

Our own ~100 years on earth is such a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of its total existence yet we are justified in straining its ecosystems in virtually every way possible?

'The weather' (warmer or colder) is a single tiny reason air pollution is bad. Even if it is having no immediate affect, it is certainly going to have an effect over a long enough time horizon.



Claeren.

[kremb]

Is it considered trolling if you actually start the thread?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Claeren

How can activily and aggressively reducing toxins from air/water/earth be a bad thing for the earth/people? How can encouraging sustainable lifestyles be a bad thing for the earth/people?

That's the one thing I dont get either. I have trouble grasping the concept that people are against helping to preserve something that effects people in such a positive manner. We all might have different concepts of how much this pollution affects the earth, but we should ALL be on the same with the general idea.

So many nice things people like to do...go camping in Kananaskis, go skiing in the mountains, take a bike ride to Prince's Island, have a backyard bbq in the early evening....so many of these things are linked to have a fresh, clean environment. It boggles me that somebody can actually be against preserving this stuff.

There is no grand conspiracy. Al Gore is not out to get you. People just want to help preserve what we already enjoy every day. Why has this become such a political hot potato?

[Mike F]

Here's the statement from the American Physical Society, which they've now publicly reaffirmed:

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.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Here's the statement from the American Physical Society, which they've now publically reaffirmed:

I think they only possible way for HOZ to safe face at this point is to claim that "diniers" is a new word meaning "supporters".

[AnarChrist]

The term that comes to mind after reading the original post, the article and the defense made by HOZ is intellectual dishonesty. This is the type of argument that continues to cloud the global warming debate. The claim of one individual is now representative of 50,000 even though it was never peer reviewed nor co-signed by anyone else from the organization. Lord Mockton is a pretty shady character and his claims should be taken with a grain of salt. HOZ fell into the trap of believing the limited information that met his own personal position, rather than understanding the whole argument.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Table 5

That's the one thing I dont get either. I have trouble grasping the concept that people are against helping to preserve something that effects people in such a positive manner. We all might have different concepts of how much this pollution affects the earth, but we should ALL be on the same with the general idea.

So many nice things people like to do...go camping in Kananaskis, go skiing in the mountains, take a bike ride to Prince's Island, have a backyard bbq in the early evening....so many of these things are linked to have a fresh, clean environment. It boggles me that somebody can actually be against preserving this stuff.

There is no grand conspiracy. Al Gore is not out to get you. People just want to help preserve what we already enjoy every day. Why has this become such a political hot potato?

This whole post is exactly what I am getting at. To even question this 50 billion dollar global warming/climate change industry = being for the destruction of the Earth and its' environment.

Typical. Being against climate dogma makes you are a heretic, a shady character, a Bush/Oil Industry lacky. To even debate the theory makes you a denier. APS are now deniers. Against preserving stuff, against saving the environment, against good, against honesty. How dare they even think of debating this?!! Make sure you get your indulgences from the Goracle and repent your environment sins!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

This whole post is exactly what I am getting at. To even question this 50 billion dollar global warming/climate change industry = being for the destruction of the Earth and its' environment.

Typical. Being against climate dogma makes you are a heretic, a shady character, a Bush/Oil Industry lacky. To even debate the theory makes you a denier. APS are now deniers. Against preserving stuff, against saving the environment, against good, against honesty. How dare they even think of debating this?!! Make sure you get your indulgences from the Goracle and repent your environment sins!

Put down the shovel.

[HOZ]

Peer reviewed

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its
conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article's conclusions."

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had
submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points
requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and
published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been
offered or having requested any honorarium.