50,000 new Global Warming diniers

[onetwo_threefour]

Not the quote I would have chosen if I were going to try and make a point HOZ. However, having read the whole letter you linked to, it comes down to 'So What?' Monckton is peeved that the Society decided to point out that the paper hadn't gone through a peer-review and was inconsistent with the general body of research out there. Monckton raises a red herring about an editorial review by a professor of physics (which is not a peer review in scientific parlance) and tries to make himself out to be a victim using latin terminology and strained language to bluster about it.

A peer review is conducted by a panel that examines the evidence presented, the conclusions drawn, and the methodology adopted. It is not concerned with explanatory/editorial niceties such as Monckton discusses as the fruit of the 'review' of his paper. Furthermore, a paper on climatology couldn't effectively be reviewed by a physicist, it would require climatologists.

[driveway]

I am of the opinion that it is very slightly possible that thus far human actions have had no impact on global climate. I think it is unlikely, but it is possible.

However, I am convinced beyond doubt that impact on the global climate is inevitable given the way we produce and consume energy and products.

Considering that 'climate' is only one aspect of the ecosystem that is planet earth (albeit the most important) and that it is absolutely undeniable that human activity has had a strong to profound impact on essentially every other aspect of that ecosystem (massive deforestation, spreading invasive species, widespread extinction of flora and fauna, overfishing, the diversion and daming of rivers and river-systems, the creation of algal-blooms and dead zones in the oceans, etc. etc.) it is almost certainly in our best interest to start addressing the environmental issues that are raised by our lifestyles. It is in our best interest whether liberal or conservative and can be equally well argued from both perspectives. There really should be no conflict here. Financial assests, intellectual energy and societal change directed towards altering the way we use the planet are not resources mis-spent.

And finally, complaining about a 50 billion dollar industry that provides jobs, resources, develops new technology, and could quite easily benefit every single living human becomes absolutely ludicrous when you consider that the only possible avenue of even semi-legitimate argument and opposition is from an economic standpoint.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Not the quote I would have chosen if I were going to try and make a point HOZ. However, having read the whole letter you linked to, it comes down to 'So What?' Monckton is peeved that the Society decided to point out that the paper hadn't gone through a peer-review and was inconsistent with the general body of research out there. Monckton raises a red herring about an editorial review by a professor of physics (which is not a peer review in scientific parlance) and tries to make himself out to be a victim using latin terminology and strained language to bluster about it.

A peer review is conducted by a panel that examines the evidence presented, the conclusions drawn, and the methodology adopted. It is not concerned with explanatory/editorial niceties such as Monckton discusses as the fruit of the 'review' of his paper. Furthermore, a paper on climatology couldn't effectively be reviewed by a physicist, it would require climatologists.

Well when I encountered APS had decided to present articles in its' magazine which debates global warming since there is a "considerable presence of skeptics" with the UN's IPCC position on Global Warming. APS asked Monckton to present a paper. There is an article preceeding his that is for the IPCC's position on global warming.


APS then 2 days after posting his paper online added the now famous
"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."

The article preceeding his was not given such a preface nor was there any mention of peer reviewing. As well the executive body later steps in and says "The executive committee of the Forum on Physics and Society, however, believes that the statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society, that "There is 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 the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution," exaggerates the number of scientists who disagree with the IPCC conclusion on anthropogenic CO2 and global warming"

So much for intellectual honesty and debating neutrality. If there is no debate why did they ask for one? What are they so afraid of? If Monckton is wrong he would be shown as such in open debate.

I apologise for saying APS has changed it's position. They have not and have an iron grip on their followers.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Lord Monckton is going to be on AM77 in a few minutes....

[Reaper]

Am I the only person to open this thread because they were curious about what a "dinier" was?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Am I the only person to open this thread because they were curious about what a "dinier" was?

No, you were not.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Am I the only person to open this thread because they were curious about what a "dinier" was?

Nope, me too. Took me a few seconds to realize the OP meant "denier".