backtop


Print 218 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Jul 28 at 2:54 PM


Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change
"Considerable presence" of skeptics


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. 


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."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How many more nails?
By karkas on 7/17/2008 12:37:25 AM , Rating: 5
How many more nails will it take before MMGW is buried. I'd like to see the media call APS quacks like the rest... Na, they will prolly just ignore it like all the other evidence which proovs the earth is round not flat.




RE: How many more nails?
By Flunk on 7/17/2008 12:40:34 AM , Rating: 4
Oh no, as soon as this one is disproved they will be back on the global cooling bandwagon. If environmentalists don't have anything to complain about they choose something new to blow out of proportion.


RE: How many more nails?
By karkas on 7/17/2008 12:56:26 AM , Rating: 3
That's true, they have a long list of hysterics, I'm sure greenpeace is cooking up the next one as we speak. MMGW will just fade away and won't draw any media attention and people will muse to themselves 20 years from now... what ever happened to all that global warming stuff a long time ago. It's a real shame, if the mainstream media actually did their jobs without letting their agenda's & paradigm's interfere we could learn a lot from this fiasco.


RE: How many more nails?
By just4U on 7/17/2008 1:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's still getting tons of media attention. It's still got Politicians campaigning for sweeping changes. It's still got the backing of the UN. It's still got the majority of the public by the balls as they don't know about alot of the reports that are coming out against it.

I don't know .. I keep thinking the damage is already done regardless of weather it was all a farce or not.


RE: How many more nails?
RE: How many more nails?
By myhipsi on 7/17/2008 10:19:23 AM , Rating: 2
FITCamero = funny

I'm a bit of a stickler for spelling, punctuation, and grammer too :P


RE: How many more nails?
By kbehrens on 7/17/2008 10:23:51 AM , Rating: 5
Do you mean grammar ? :P


RE: How many more nails?
By myhipsi on 7/17/2008 10:30:49 AM , Rating: 5
Damn it, now I look like an idiot :P

... (Checks spelling of last sentence)...


RE: How many more nails?
By plinkplonk on 7/17/2008 1:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
if you use firefox 3 it does spell checking for you as you type ;)


RE: How many more nails?
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 10:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
oh that's super. god forbid anyone should "lern 2 reed an rite propurley" :p


RE: How many more nails?
By ElBrujo on 7/25/2008 3:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
Or, g*d forbid, that IE 7 can do it, too. Most of the reasons that I've heard people give for liking Firefox better are addressed by a single IE plug-in: IE 7 Pro.

I'm not saying that Firefox doesn't have its uses...


RE: How many more nails?
By Jedi2155 on 7/28/2008 2:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
Except that its built in with Firefox versus a plug-in for the IE. Extra install versus its just there....


RE: How many more nails?
By quickk on 7/17/2008 3:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
This seems to be a universal law: whenever someone ridicules someone else about spelling or grammar, they are bound to make a mistake themselves.

My favorite reply: your an idiot.


RE: How many more nails?
By therealnickdanger on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many more nails?
By quickk on 7/17/2008 6:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
I was pointing out that I find it hilarious when people reply "your an idiot" instead of "you're an idiot."

I wasn't saying that I love to reply "your an idiot."

I guess I should of made that a bit more clear...


RE: How many more nails?
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 5:21:51 AM , Rating: 5
The information in this article is not accurate. In the APS website there's a notice denying this. This view represents only one member opinion that he wrote in an article. In no way it represents de official stand of the APS. The offcial point of view of the APS is that global warming is cause by man made CO2 emissions.

For more info check their website: http://www.aps.org/


RE: How many more nails?
By elgueroloco on 7/25/2008 3:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
The information in the article is quite accurate, you just didn't bother to read it all. It mentions right in the article that the main APS site has disavowed the debate and that it is only taking place within the Physics & Society department. If you go to the post, you will see that they newletter editor is publishing two articles this month, one against MMGW and one for it. It's a debate. Nobody ever said they APS changed its policy.


RE: How many more nails?
By mthrndr on 7/18/2008 11:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you should HAVE made it clearer.


RE: How many more nails?
By jbartabas on 7/18/2008 11:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess I should of made that a bit more clear...


It was crystal clear, actually. But you should consider that "your" dealing mostly with idiots around here ...


RE: How many more nails?
By DPercy on 7/24/2008 8:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes JbartAnAss, you're the best idiot of the bunch. Actually, you're mentally sick and should be drugged up in an Instatution. Maybe you're there now.


RE: How many more nails?
By B3an on 7/22/2008 1:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
No it was obvious. He's just an idiot.


RE: How many more nails?
By Mojo the Monkey on 7/18/2008 12:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
and you spelled his name wrong


RE: How many more nails?
By grenableu on 7/17/2008 9:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the EPA just announced a huge set of new regulations to restrict CO2. Senator Inhofe has called it the most economically destructive act the federal government has taken in fifty years.


RE: How many more nails?
By Polynikes on 7/21/2008 9:38:26 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately, I think you're right. The damage is done, we will have spent ungodly amounts of money "fixing" this "problem" before we realize it wasn't really a problem.


RE: How many more nails?
By Ringold on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many more nails?
By Fluxion on 7/17/2008 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 1
I think one of the largest reasons for lunar colonization is for the exploitation of its resources, lol. Once we're done strip-mining it, nobody will ever have known that its surface was once crater-laden.


RE: How many more nails?
By grenableu on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many more nails?
By Polynikes on 7/21/2008 9:35:12 PM , Rating: 1
The moon is a rock with no life on it. Who gives a crap if we mine it?


RE: How many more nails?
By ikkeman2 on 7/23/2008 1:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure it'll be real romantic.
You take your girl (or guy - whatever tickles your fancy) to the lake. serve your prepared piknick with a cooler or wine (or a bottle of schotch - again, tickle away). and after the sun sets you spend a few memorable hours in the warmth of your campfire.

The perfect ending to this scenario is offcourse staring up at the new stripmine site...
Or Nike might pay billions to get their logo carved into it's surface... It'll be a massive job, but the chinese build a wall you can see from space with only manual labour - I'm sure our tech is advanced enough to carve a buetiful nike sign in luna's face.

not that I'm against strip-mining, but i can see some of their points.


RE: How many more nails?
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 4:53:21 AM , Rating: 1
The information in this article is not accurate. In the APS website there's a notice denying this. This view represents only one member opinion that he wrote in an article. In no way it represents de official stand of the APS. The offcial point of view of the APS is that global warming is cause by man made CO2 emissions.

For more info check their website: http://www.aps.org/

Sorry Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck uneducated followers


RE: How many more nails?
By calvin0007 on 7/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many more nails?
By mahax on 7/18/2008 12:39:45 PM , Rating: 3
Do'h, things change over a loooong time. You know, America broke off of Africa etc. And 4000 years is a bit longer than the industrialized era which during we presumably caused the GW. The whole point isn't the change, but the rate it's happening at.


RE: How many more nails?
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 8:57:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
These little things keep bugging me; why did the Vikings call Greenland, Greenland in the 10th century AD?

Possibly because the south of Greenland, where they landed, IS green?

Take a look at pictures of the place sometime. A little bit rocky, but otherwise it reminds me a LOT of Ireland (and certainly similar to Newfoundland). You don't have to go very far North in the country until it's covered in ice, but the Vikings landed on the Southernmost tip.

The name 'Greenland' is neither proof nor disproof of anything other than the name of an island.


RE: How many more nails?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2008 9:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "The name 'Greenland' is neither proof nor disproof of anything other than the name of an island. "

There is no doubt that Greenland was substantially warming during the Viking colonization than it is today. I've posted the studies to demonstrate such many times before. The coming of the Little Ice Age cooled the continent by some 2-3C and spelled the end of the Viking settlements.


RE: How many more nails?
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 9:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, Greenland was warmer when the Vikings colonized the place vs. when they died off or left. The temperature data may be of some interest, the name 'Greenland' is not.

Temperature data is science, 'Greenland' is just the name of an island in the North Atlantic.


RE: How many more nails?
By darmbruster on 7/19/2008 11:07:28 AM , Rating: 5
the true story: They called green Iceland ICEland and the Icy Greenland GREENland to keep people from setting Iceland. It was a trick... or so they say...



RE: How many more nails?
By darmbruster on 7/19/2008 11:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
correction: settling


RE: How many more nails?
By mthrndr on 7/18/2008 11:52:55 AM , Rating: 1
YEYO, continue using that yeyo, and remain oblivious to reality. None of us care.


RE: How many more nails?
By macintyred on 7/18/2008 1:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed you didn't include Rush Limbaugh with O'Reilly and Beck.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limba...
quote:
Limbaugh’s audience is often underestimated by critics who don’t listen to the show (only 3 percent of his audience identify themselves as “liberal,” according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press). Recently, Pew reported that, on a series of “news knowledge questions,” Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” — the defiantly self-mocking term for his faithful, supposedly brainwashed, audience — scored higher than NPR listeners. The study found that “readers of newsmagazines, political magazines and business magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR and viewers of the Daily Show and C-SPAN are also much more likely than the average person to have a college degree.”


RE: How many more nails?
By WTFiSJuiCE on 7/21/2008 6:46:44 AM , Rating: 3
This just in from the APS.

They've debated the global warming issue and after much deliberation, they have finally come to a consensus.

The answer to Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU&feature...


RE: How many more nails?
By WTFiSJuiCE on 7/21/2008 6:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
OMG! It makes so much sense =D.

Now I can finally understand what they're talking about


RE: How many more nails?
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 5:20:55 AM , Rating: 3
The information in this article is not accurate. In the APS website there's a notice denying this. This view represents only one member. In no way it represents de official stand of the APS. The offcial point of view of the APS is that global warming is cause by man made CO2 emissions.

For more info check their website: http://www.aps.org/


RE: How many more nails?
By rangerdavid on 7/18/2008 10:47:35 AM , Rating: 5

DailyTech Blog = FAIL.

This is why blogs are terrible sources of information. Go to the APS.org webiste. You'll see this opinion is expressed by a single paper submitted to the organization, not the organization itself.


RE: How many more nails?
By grenableu on 7/18/2008 12:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
A single paper...you don't read very well, do you?


RE: How many more nails?
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 2:04:32 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks guys. We killed this story. Drudge Report removed this from their site. Now they stand corrected.

PLANET EARTH 1 / EXXON MOBILE 0


RE: How many more nails?
By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 2:21:35 PM , Rating: 5
The damage has already been done.

Mr. Asher is single-handedly making Daily Tech a website for stupid people.


RE: How many more nails?
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Don't give up Night Owl. Is our duty to promote the idea of a cleaner planet, by debunking false information that appears in any news media outlet. That's the only way we're going to be able to fight the misinformation agenda of some big companies that might loose money if the government put in place CO2 regulations.

Non the less is now obvious for many people in the government and private sector that fighting global warming is going to bring many economic advantages in the future.


RE: How many more nails?
By kbehrens on 7/18/2008 8:37:55 PM , Rating: 3
The "big companies" are gaining money from CO2 emission restrictions. Carbon credits are now a multi billion dollar industry, and big business is making a fortune off government subsidizies on biofuels, wind, solar, and other schemes. The people that are paying the price are you and me.

Meanwhile, China is now putting out more CO2 than the US. In 20 years, it'll put out more than the US and Europe combined.


RE: How many more nails?
By FITCamaro on 7/17/2008 8:49:21 AM , Rating: 5
Idiots will always exist. If they're not complaining and/or campaigning for us to change our lives about one thing, it'll be another.

After man-made global warming I'm thinking they'll go after the production of Twinkies. They last forever so therefore are evil since they can clutter landfills. In trying to get rid of them though they will doom the survivors of the nuclear holocaust since that would have been their only source of food. Instead they'll have to eat the cockroaches. Assuming the mutated cockroaches don't eat them first.


RE: How many more nails?
By Plughead on 7/17/2008 11:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't another nail. This is Old News. A quick google reveals that this guy has been an idiot since at least 2006:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1...


RE: How many more nails?
By kbehrens on 7/18/2008 12:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
FYI, Gavin Schmidt is one of the founders of RealClimate and about the most radical AGW zealot in the Northern hemisphere. It doesn't really mean a lot that he says Monckton is wrong.


RE: How many more nails?
By Plughead on 7/18/2008 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
*sigh*

Being that Monckton DOESN'T HAVE ANY PHYSICS CREDENTIALS at all, how is it that you think we should take HIM seriously?

This gem is from his Wikipedia entry:

[For his part, Monckton takes the view that it is "a very modern notion that you need paper qualifications to pronounce on anything and it comes from the socialist idea that people need to be trained in the official, accepted, dogmatic truths."]

Umm, yeah... He's a loon.


RE: How many more nails?
By Optimizer on 7/25/2008 8:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I DO have a degree in physics. I've personally looked at historical temperature and CO2 data and they are well correlated, if you don't include the last 150 years or so of data. If you use the past correlation to predict the Earth's temperature based on today's atmospheric CO2 concentration, it should be MUCH warmer than it is currently. I can only conclude that it is most very probably somewhat maybe possibly likely that CO2 isn't as strong a driver as "we" think it is.

And I tend to agree with the notion that somebody can be an expert in a field without having a degree and that the converse is also true, that somebody can have that piece of paper and yet be unqualified to take a stance on an issue.

---

Will Hunting: You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in library late fees

Harvard snob: I might have wasted my money, but I'll have a degree, and you'll be cleaning my floors.

Will Hunting: Yeah..but at least I won't be unoriginal.


RE: How many more nails?
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 4:52:27 AM , Rating: 1
The information in this article is not accurate. In the APS website there's a notice denying this. This view represents only one member opinion that he wrote in an article. In no way it represents de official stand of the APS. The offcial point of view of the APS is that global warming is cause by man made CO2 emissions.

For more info check their website: http://www.aps.org/

Sorry Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck uneducated followers


RE: How many more nails?
By Continuum01 on 7/18/2008 9:06:17 AM , Rating: 5
The APS website specifically denies this headline. Additionally, the APS specifically says that this is the personal opinion of the author, and not that of the APS. Why do you guys always, always resort to lying and distorting the truth?


RE: How many more nails?
By ameriswede on 7/20/2008 5:39:58 AM , Rating: 3
LOL!! as per usual, you poor right wing slobs just got mislead! In any other instance, on almost any other subject any rational person would say "better safe than sorry" and enact measures to avoid the worst case scenario. however, you stupid, easily mislead bunch of conservative robots are just buying the arguments(?) which Exxon and their ilk have put forth to further their own interest. All because you have already decided their is no such thing as MMGW, and nothing, apparently not even 98% of the scientific community, can sway your misbegotten belief. I know most of you are religious (supposedly), but is kneeling at the alter of corporate greed the way of Jesus?


RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many more nails?
By Chris Bell on 7/21/2008 10:55:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
i pointed out that according to the law of universal gravitation the earth and sun must be constantly moving closer to one another and considering the rate at which the human population increases, for every billion new people born, once the reach adulthood, assuming an average of !50lbs per person, that is an extra 150 billion lbs of additional gravitational force pulling the earth as a whole toward the sun. (and before anyone tried to "correct" me, no i don't mean 150 billion lbs of mass, lbs is a unit of force, as weight is mass times the acceleration due to gravity, in this case the gravitational pull of the sun.)
as i pointed out, 150 billion lbs of extra gravitational force would be more than sufficient to accelerate the rate at which the earth is "falling" towards the sun.

not only was i the only one that was asked to present his paper to the class, not only did i receive the only "A" on the assignment, but the my professor also told me that i was one of the brighter people she had ever had the privilege of instructing.


This post makes me sad.

So there is extra mass due to all the people being born? Where do you think those people come from?

They grow. To fuel this growth, they eat. They eat food from the ground. (Or other animals which eat food from the ground.) The food grows from a seed. The seed grows by pulling in nutrients from the roots. Humans are, in a very distant sense, made of the ground.

New people do not add to the mass of the Earth. The conservation of mass is first year physics.

You got an A? Again, that makes me sad.


RE: How many more nails?
By Gruffy on 7/22/2008 3:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
I, too am saddened that this paper received an A. I would downgrade for the following as well:
Were there to be an added mass, the earth-moon system would actually move farther from the sun. The only way for it to move closer to the sun (fall in, so to speak) would be for the orbital velocity of the system to decrease.
I would assign a "B" - because his stand was meritorious, but one of his presentations was fallacious.


RE: How many more nails?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/22/2008 3:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
> "The only way for it to move closer to the sun (fall in, so to speak) would be for the orbital velocity of the system to decrease."

Just the opposite, in fact. The nearer the earth (or any orbiting body) is, the higher its orbital velocity. For instance, Mercury's orbital velocity is 48 km/s, much higher than the Earth's velocity of 30 km/s.

> "Were there to be an added mass, the earth-moon system would actually move farther from the sun."

Actually, assuming the Earth magically increased its mass, the net effect on orbital radius (or velocity) would be zero.

If the Earth's mass increased by some exernal mass being added to it (say by a comet strike), then the orbital radius would either increase or decrease depending on whether the addition added or subtracted energy to the overall system. A comet strike moving faster than the Earth, for example, would increase total energy, and thus increase orbital radius.


RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/22/2008 9:24:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I, too am saddened that this paper received an A. I would downgrade for the following as well:
Were there to be an added mass, the earth-moon system would actually move farther from the sun. The only way for it to move closer to the sun (fall in, so to speak) would be for the orbital velocity of the system to decrease.
I would assign a "B" - because his stand was meritorious, but one of his presentations was fallacious.


i too am saddened because i had no idea that the education system in this country was so lacking.

i am dying to hear why you believe that an increase in mass in either the earth or moon (or both) would result in the earth (and moon) moving further from the sun.

the earth has 2 angular velocities (1 in relation to itself and 1 in relation to the sun) and the moon has 3 angular velocities (1 in relation to itself, 1 in relation to the earth and 1 in relation to the sun), what makes you think that an increase in mass of the earth would result in a faster angular velocity of any of the above mentioned velocities?

let me guess: because newton explained the orbit of the moon as a series of continuous falls, right? perhaps you have heard of curvature, you know that pesky little property of matter that "distorts" the space around it and is immortalized in Newton's law of universal gravitation as 'G', you know that silly little value we know as the gravitational constant (in case you didn't know, that's what 'G' describes, though newton didn't realize it at the time, curvature). any of this ringing a bell?

an increase in the mass of the earth would result in an increase in the curvature of space around it, resulting in a greater attraction between earth and moon and earth and sun.

do i really need to post a complete physics lecture on mass, energy, angular velocity, curvature and gravity in this forum?


RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many more nails?
By dryer on 7/23/2008 11:05:09 AM , Rating: 4
OMG, you are so wrong, where do I begin.

The earth is not increasing in mass. Yes there is a little equation E=mc^2 which obviously you know very little about. Are you assuming the energy from the sun is being converted to mass? Ok fine, let's go there. The amount of energy received by the sun per year is approximately 3850 zettajoules. Assume all of that energy is converted to mass. That would be an increase in mass of the earth of 4.28 * 10^7 kilograms per year according to E = mc^2. The mass of the earth is about 5.97 * 10^24 grams. That is about a 10^(-16)% change in mass per year. Or put another way, it would take about 1 quadrillion years for the mass of the earth to increase by 1%.

Of course that does not even address what mechanisms you are discussing that provides the conversion. You are not talking about photosynthesis are you? That is merely the conversion of light energy into chemical energy. If mass is being created, in what form is it being created. Are neutrons forming, protons, electrons...? Of course if you create an electron you must also create an anti-electron which would become annilahated once it came into contact with an electron, thus no net mass would be created.

Mass is being created from energy on earth in super colliders, but no where else. The energies needed to create the tiniest bit of mass is enormous.

The earth is bombarded with cosmic dust and from ions from the sun, but the masses are insignificant and will not alter the orbital path of the earth in any measureable way.

Your explanation of black hole formation is completely false. Stars lose mass as they age. They convert mass into energy. That is how they burn. Black holes form when the fuel of a very large star is consumed and there is not sufficient heat to keep the gravitational forces from collapsing the star. I will not go into the nuclear physics involved since obviously you need learn the basics first.

The reason why mass was produced during the big bang was that the energy density was so high. That is what is required to convert energy to mass. That is why conversion of energy to mass only occurs in a super collider.

Your physics teacher should be fired.

BTW, I have PhD in physics.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't (Masters in EE), but I knew that as well. It is in any freshman physics course, and the why taught ruthlessly in the first physics course for science majors.


RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/23/2008 6:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW, I have PhD in physics


it may be time to return your Ph.D. and as for a refund.

quote:
The earth is not increasing in mass. Yes there is a little equation E=mc^2 which obviously you know very little about. Are you assuming the energy from the sun is being converted to mass? Ok fine, let's go there. The amount of energy received by the sun per year is approximately 3850 zettajoules. Assume all of that energy is converted to mass. That would be an increase in mass of the earth of 4.28 * 10^7 kilograms per year according to E = mc^2. The mass of the earth is about 5.97 * 10^24 grams. That is about a 10^(-16)% change in mass per year. Or put another way, it would take about 1 quadrillion years for the mass of the earth to increase by 1%.


the earth is not increasing in mass? perhaps you should tell that to this guy:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae75....

as you can see the earth's mass (he mistakenly uses the word "weight" instead of "mass") increases by 1 quadrillionth of 1 percent per day NOT per year, and that's only from debris and particles that strike the earth, that's assuming zero energy/mass conversion takes place.

here's some info from NASA that i think you might find informative:

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#masseart...

go to number 19 (Speed of Earth's Rotation Slowing?) and then number 24 (Weight Changes if Earth Stops Rotating) and for the coup de grace check out number 36 (Changes in the Earth-Sun Distance). there's plenty more there that adds support to my theory but allow me to just say: "checkmate".

quote:
Your explanation of black hole formation is completely false. Stars lose mass as they age. They convert mass into energy. That is how they burn. Black holes form when the fuel of a very large star is consumed and there is not sufficient heat to keep the gravitational forces from collapsing the star. I will not go into the nuclear physics involved since obviously you need learn the basics first.


where did you get the idea that stars lose mass as they age? some links, the information taken together should be enough to convince you that a star's mass increases with time not decreases:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/energy_mass_equ...

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/fusion.html

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html

something else also just occurred to me, both the sun and the earth have very powerful magnetic fields (<---can you guess where i'm going with this?), i wonder if the two magnetic fields (assuming they had the correct polarization) could interact with sufficient strength to increase the amount of attraction between the earth and sun? if in fact they are strong enough, you would have a second force drawing the two together and another explanation for global warming (assuming it actually exists).

Ph.D. in Physics, huh? what clown school did you drop out from. same goes for the clown that agreed with you claiming a Master's in EE.

yeah right.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 8:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well you obviously can't read or follow conversations longer that five words. So when did you drop out of the fifth grade?

As the previous conversation was about gaining mass due to energy absorption alone.
He was isolating the affects of the earth gaining mass from energy only, NOT from ANY cosmic particles and it was a hypothetical calcluation in any case as he assumed 100% energy to mass conversion. Which does not happen right? right?

Would it not also be true to say that the magnetic fields are repelling one another instead of attracting? What of the outward force of the solar wind? What did does this even have to do with the conversation at hand? What is your degree from anyway? ITT Tech? Go back and learn how to read bozo.


RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/24/2008 12:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well you obviously can't read or follow conversations longer that five words. So when did you drop out of the fifth grade?


when they skipped me ahead to the 6th grade.

quote:
As the previous conversation was about gaining mass due to energy absorption alone. He was isolating the affects of the earth gaining mass from energy only, NOT from ANY cosmic particles and it was a hypothetical calcluation in any case as he assumed 100% energy to mass conversion. Which does not happen right? right?


wrong. i initially talked about a paper i wrote in college where i pointed out that if global warming does take place another, better, explanation was that earth's mass was increasing as a result of the increase in the earth's population.

2 posters wrote in to offer the opinion that the total earth mass remains constant and that the increase in the earth's population didn't require an increase in mass as people where simply composed of mass that was already here.

i pointed out a mechanism for the increase in mass, namely energy/mass conversion (not energy absorption, something quite different) and i also explained how the earth was not a closed system and it was constantly getting bombarded by mass (in the form of particles) of an extra-terrestrial origin. "he", our supposed Ph.D. in Physics, claimed that such a thing does not in fact take place and you agreed, which makes both of you imbeciles. i offered proof that it does in fact take place.

go back and reread my post and his reply and then start flapping your gums, ok fruitcake?

quote:
Would it not also be true to say that the magnetic fields are repelling one another instead of attracting? What of the outward force of the solar wind? What did does this even have to do with the conversation at hand?


i'm sorry, i thought you said you had a Master's in EE, which i took to mean electrical engineering, silly me. were you absent the day they talked about magnetic fields? just so you know, it is not possible for 2 magnetic fields to simultaneously attract and repel one another, if you go back and reread what i wrote i was thinking out loud and wondering IF the earth's and the sun's magnetic fields had the correct orientation (i initially said "polarization" but orientation is a more accurate description) would they be strong enough to interact with one another at these distances and then opined that if the above 2 conditions were true then (and only then) we would have a second force drawing the earth closer to the sun, thus adding support for my alternate explanation of global warming.

quote:
Go back and learn how to read bozo.


this applies to you more than me.


RE: How many more nails?
By BigT383 on 7/24/2008 8:08:13 PM , Rating: 3
Your observation on patent expiration has merit, and is an interesting topic for a paper. However it has been independently verified that CFCs do weaken the ozone layer.

As for the global warming issue, mainstream science in peer-reviewed publications does have a consensus that human activity is to blame for the increase in temperatures since the beginning of the industrial revolution. People that deny it usually have some reason for denying it, and I'm wondering why yours is. My guess is some pathological like of conspiracy theories, based on your patent observation ideas? Do some research, write papers about your findings, but never be afraid to be proven wrong.

Speaking to the physics that you mentioned... they were pretty bad.

According to Google, in order for a photon to have enough energy to spontaneously change into a particle with the mass of an electron, it must have an energy of 510,998.903 electron volts (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-... which would classify such a photon as a Gamma Ray (>~100,000 ev, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray). The sun does not produce much energy at those wavelengths- it's not nearly hot enough. The exceptions are sometimes in magnetic breaks in solar flares, and through normal radioactive decay, etc. Furthermore, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to gamma rays- they get absorbed by air way high up, which lets off that energy as mostly heat (see thermo sphere, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere). In short, gamma rays do not account for any significant changes in earth's mass. Why gamma rays and not some other type of photon that the sun outputs? Because you need a high enough energy density to create matter out of energy- all of the sunlight spread over the earth cannot be taken into account. That's like saying there's enough sunlight hitting the ocean to boil a thimble of water (which is obviously true), but why are the oceans still there? Because the light is spread out.

Anyway, I'm wandering. Next up: rocks and dust. In this, you are correct. Rocks and dust do enter the earth every day, adding to the earth's mass. The problem is, not enough to matter. The earth masses ~6x10^24kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) and according to your link (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae75.... gets one quadrillionth of one percent of it's mass per day. So over one quadrillion days the mass will increase one percent. That's 2.73792575 * 10^12 years (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-... The earth has only been around for 4.6 * 10^9 years. So at that rate the earth has increased in mass by like one one-thousandth of one percent over it's ENTIRE SPAN OF EXISTENCE (Yes, early on there was a period of heavy bombardment, etc, but lets agree that the current rate has been fairly constant for at least the last billion years or so). Even if you consider that mass amount significant with respect to gravity (gravity is an extremely weak force!) then to say that it's significant over the last two hundred years is certainly folly. Solar tidal forces have certainly had more effect on the earth's orbit than any such mass increase.

Now, I'm no expert in orbital dynamics, but I do know that if you increase the speed of an orbiting object tangentially to it's center of orbit (push it "forward" along its orbital path) then you move to a higher, slower orbit. Slow down, and you sink inwards but move faster. It's not very intuitive, I know. If instead you do what's natural and try to accelerate directly away from the center of your orbit, all you'll do is make the orbit more elliptical. Adding mass does basically the same thing as adding speed, since basically you're adding a force (Force=Mass*Acceleration), it's going to hurt more if it hits you, etc.). So the adding mass to the earth would cause it to move away from the sun, having greater orbital energy but lower orbital velocity. Imagine a baseball on a string that you're spinning over your head. The string goes from your hand to the ball, and represents gravity. Your hand represents the sun, since it's in the center and it's pulling on the ball to keep it going in a circle. Now say I suddenly replace the baseball with a bowling ball. That's a lot more mass! You have to use a lot more force to keep it in the same small circle- it wants to move further out and go slower. Now, you'll probably argue that as the earth's mass increases so does its attraction to the sun (correct), which would cause it to move in towards the sun (incorrect). What that actually means is that the sun would "feel" the earth more, but what determines where you orbit isn't your mass, it's your orbital speed. That's why satellites and the moon and asteroids etc, can orbit the sun in about the same orbit as earth, without weighing nearly as much. You'll probably say that the moon orbits the earth, not the sun, but in actuality it orbits both. If the earth felt the sun's gravity but the moon did not, the earth's gravity wouldn't be nearly enough to hold the moon in orbit.

Okay, whew... getting to the end here. Now on to stars and black holes. Yes, stars do lose mass over their lifetimes. For one, as mentioned above, they're turning mass into energy all the time- that's what starlight is made of- and starlight obviously leaves the star. The sun loses 4 million tons of mass each second through fusion alone (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronom... stars have "winds" of particles that leave them. The sun loses 6.7 billion tons per hour through the solar wind (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronom... Stars vary greatly- larger stars are brighter and use their fuel faster, and have higher powered winds as well, and smaller stars are less bright, live longer, and have lower-powered winds. Also, as stars get old then swell into red giants, and at this point the star is so big (same gravity, larger area) it loses grasp of the outer layers and sloughs them off in a kind of super-solar-wind that produces planetary nebulae that you can see in Hubble Pics. So stars do lose mass as they age.

Now black holes. After the red giant phase, the largest stars can still have like 12 times the mass of the sun left, even after the red giant phase. When certain conditions are met, the star will explode as a supernova. During this process, the core of the star -still weighing several times the mass of the sun- gets squished by all of that energy into something smaller than a city. Now because it's so small, the forces of gravity acting on each individual particle are so great (because they're so close together and gravity weakens with distance) that even the neutrons (which are all that's left after the gravity has smushed the electrons into their respective protons) can't hold that core up and it collapses below what is called the Schwarzschild Radius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius) to form a black hole. So you see it's not that black holes have a lot of mass (the star that the black hole came from had much MORE mass than the black hole left behind), but it's because it's in such a small area that the black hole exists. In fact, many things can be made into a black hole if you were to smush them small enough. If you were to smush earth into a sphere smaller than its Schwarzschild Radius of about ~9mm then it would be a black hole, too. See this helpful video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2VcJy8dPUM.

Okay, hopefully we cleared a lot of things up here today, and we all learned something.

Science!


RE: How many more nails?
By BigT383 on 7/24/2008 8:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Stupid parsing... here's the video I mention (no period on the end)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2VcJy8dPUM


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 8:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
BTW which is greater in mass

two hydrogen atoms or 1 helium atom genius?


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 10:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
whoops,

meant to say 6 hydrogen atoms, verus one helium alpha particle!


RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/24/2008 12:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
BTW which is greater in mass

two hydrogen atoms or 1 helium atom genius?

lets see, you don't mention which isotopes, so let's assume you mean the most common one:

1 hydrogen-1 (the most comment hydrogen isotope) atom has an atomic mass of 1.007825u, 1 helium-4 atom (the most common helium isotope on earth) has an atomic mass of 4.002602u, and 1 hydrogen molecule has an average molecular mass of 2 x 1.007825u or 2015650u.

let me guess, you thought that 2 hydrogen atoms have the same atomic mass as 1 helium atom does, didn't you?

i guess you were absent on the day they taught fundamental chemistry as well.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
You still don't get it. And you don't read more than one post before you put your foot in your mouth.

6H << Helium4 2H
(6 * 1.07825) is less than (1 * 4.002602u) + (2*1.07825) + (subatomic particles) + (energy from mass conversion)

Another form is
4H = He4 + (subatomic particles) + (energy from mass conversion)

The above is the basic proton-proton fusion reaction. (More to it as the sub atomic particles are not listed explicity.)
As one He4 + the subatomic particles have less mass than 4 hydrogen atoms that difference in mass is what is converted to energy.

You prove again how dumb you are.


RE: How many more nails?
By dryer on 7/25/2008 1:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
Give it up Jim. I cannot believe that anybody with any sort of science education could make so many moronic statements about science. Therefore, I am left with only one conclusion to make: deadrats is an internet troll whose only purpose in life is to stir up trouble and insult other users.

Don't feed the trolls.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 3:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
You got it. I am done.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 8:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
This f**cking idiot has pissed me off so much I have to write another post.

So let me get this straight. The sun gains mass even though
it loses mass due to fusion, loses mass due to solar flare coronal ejections, and loses mass due to the solar wind?

I have to say it again, you are an idiot.


RE: How many more nails?
By deadrats on 7/24/2008 1:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This f**cking idiot has pissed me off so much I have to write another post.

So let me get this straight. The sun gains mass even though
it loses mass due to fusion, loses mass due to solar flare coronal ejections, and loses mass due to the solar wind?

I have to say it again, you are an idiot


ok, let's go with your hypothesis that i am an idiot, explain something to me so that even i can understand it: stars collapse in on themselves to form black holes (not all stars, just some of them), can we both agree on that? when a star does become a black hole it's gravitational field is so strong that light can't escape it once it's within the schwarzschild radius (nor can anything else), can we agree on this?

here's a question for you numb nuts, if a star's gravity field isn't strong enough prevent light from escaping before it becomes a black hole and gravity is a function of mass:

Fg - (M1 * M2) / D^2 * G

and as you claim the star's mass doesn't increase, then how exactly does the strength of it's gravitational field not only increase but increase to the point where light can't even escape it.

i'm dying to hear your explanation.

oh, one more little tidbit for you, fusion does not result in a loss of mass but a net gain, that's why if you look up the atomic mass of hydrogen and the atomic mass of helium you find that helium is roughly 4+ times as massive as hydrogen.

ooh, i'm sure i just pissed you off even more, or perhaps what's really pissing you off is that fact that you realize that your degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/24/2008 5:00:43 PM , Rating: 3
You are still an idiot, and not only that you don't seem to know it! The key is in the gravitation equation that you provided but evidently don't understand. Thus I will try to educate the ignorant.

Force of Gravity equation is typically expressed as

Fg = (G*M1*M2)/R^2

Where R is the radius, and M1 and M2 are the two masses involved.
Fg is a function of both mass and the star's radius.

So as Mass gets larger Fg gets larger true, however that is not the only factor. As you can see the star's radius is in the divisor of the equation and is squared, so as it gets smaller it has a much much LARGER impact on Fg. (Duh!)
The reason why a blackhole's gravity is so powerful, is due to the fact that an older star's fusion reaction can no longer overpower the star's gravity and the star's volume gets smaller and smaller. Thus, the star gets denser and denser, while at the same time the fusion reaction is still caausing mass loss.(If you don't know why look it up.) Eventually as R gets smaller the Fg (R2 is the dominant factor here.) gets so great that light cannot escape.

And as far as the proton-proton fusion reaction of stars, it takes three hydrogen atoms to form one helium3 atom, which is a net loss genius.
In detail
Hydrogen's atomic weight is 1.0079, and 4 hydrogen atoms atomic weight is 4.0316
The atomic weight of helium4 is 4.00260 which is a little less than 4 hydrogen atoms, this mass difference is converted to energy and some subatomic particles. End of story.

So deadrat stop trying to understand adult subjects until you grow up.

I am done with you.


RE: How many more nails?
By dryer on 7/23/2008 8:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the earth is not increasing in mass? perhaps you should tell that to this guy:


As I said in my post

quote:
The earth is bombarded with cosmic dust and from ions from the sun, but the masses are insignificant and will not alter the orbital path of the earth in any measureable way.


So it looks like I agree with your link and the amount is insignificant.

quote:
go to number 19 (Speed of Earth's Rotation Slowing?) and then number 24 (Weight Changes if Earth Stops Rotating) and for the coup de grace check out number 36 (Changes in the Earth-Sun Distance). there's plenty more there that adds support to my theory but allow me to just say: "checkmate".


number 19 says
"The Earth's spin is slowing down by about 1.5 - 2 milliseconds per century, and that angular momentum is moving into the Moon's orbit, which is getting larger. The reason for this, and the reason a figure skater can only spin for so long, is friction. In the case of the skater, it's air resistance and friction with the ice. In the case of the Earth, it's the friction due to tides moving around the Earth."

Irrelevant to global warming or your crazy theory about the earth gaining mass.

#24 is about the apparent weight of objects on the earth and has nothing to do with the mass of the earth changing.

#36 is about cycles the earth follows in its orbit. This may be relevant to global warming but has nothing to do with the mass of the earth increasing.

quote:
where did you get the idea that stars lose mass as they age? some links, the information taken together should be enough to convince you that a star's mass increases with time not decreases:


Gee I don't know, maybe it was something I always knew just like what your NASA link says:

"The final nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons, a nucleus of the most common form of helium. The mass of this nucleus is slightly less than the mass of the four protons from which it forms. The lost mass is converted into energy. The amount of energy can be calculated from the German-born physicist Albert Einstein's famous equation E = mc-squared (E=mc2). In this equation, the symbol E represents the energy, m the mass that is covered, and c-squared (c2) the speed of light multiplied by itself."

How about looking at #11

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#masseart...

"Although stars lose mass as they evolve, none lose enough to wind up anywhere near the mass of even the most massive planet."

Did you say something about checkmate?

You still have not explained the process of how energy from the sun is converted to mass on the earth. Is this a multi-photon process? What are the particles that are created? If this is something you can prove, you should get a Nobel prize. However, I have the feeling that you are just a crack pot.


RE: How many more nails?
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 9:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well deadrats? You gonna answer genius?


Wrong again ...
By jbartabas on 7/17/2008 10:36:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 10,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.


Your link is an editorial from "The Forum on Physics and Society (FPS)", not the APS. A quote from the text itself

quote:
We, the editors of P&S [i.e. Physics & Society], invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community.
.

From the site itself:
"The Forum on Physics and Society (FPS) is a division of the American Physical Society, organized in 1971 to address issues related to the interface of physics and society as a whole. The support of APS members is vital to the work of the Forum, both because Forum activities are coordinated by its active members and the financial support the Forum receives from the APS depends on its membership. All APS members may join two Forums free of charge."

Here's a list of the units of the APS:
http://www.aps.org/membership/units/index.cfm
with the statement:

quote:
APS units conduct their own activities and function with much autonomy.


As for the actual official statement from the APS , it is ~8 months old, is still there

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

and it states:

quote:
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.


Nothing has been reversed. Please keep us posted when the American Physical Society amend its statement or take it off its site ... if you can't tell the difference between a forum editorial and a statement from a scientific organization, you "denialite" becomes seriously acute!




RE: Wrong again ...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong again ...
By jbartabas on 7/17/2008 11:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I realize how desperately some people wish to minimize such news, but this is considerably more than just a forum post . The APS Newsletter is now hosting an ongoing debate on global warming, with the first two pieces already published, and more to come.


I don't know who's trying to desperately minimize or maximize stuff, or what's your personal interpretation of "Forum", but first of all it's not the APS newsletter, it's the newsletter of the " Forum on Physics & Society". This unit is listed on the APS website under the category " Forums " (http://www.aps.org/membership/units/index.cfm). Now if you don't like the word "forum", it's too bad for you, but that's what is is. Plain and simple.

As a side note regarding the pieces published in FPS, the FPS states:
quote:
Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum .


Bottom line: the American Physical Society has not reversed its stance on climate change.


RE: Wrong again ...
By ttowntom on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong again ...
By jbartabas on 7/17/2008 12:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The APS is sponsoring a debate on global warming.


I never denied the debate. These debates happen in various scientific publications (EOS for example), there's nothing wrong with that. The point is that the APS has not reversed its stance on climate change, no more than the AGU does when a debate is published in one of its journals (i.e. EOS). That's it.

I posted enough statements from both the APS & FPS pages to make it clear that the editorial of FPS or the pieces published there do not engage in any way the position of the whole APS itself. If you can't tell the difference, that's your problem. And that's not the first time Mike does this kind of "mistake", cf his article about the Astronomical Society of Australia supposedly warning of global cooling. I note that you're the one who did not get it either that time.


RE: Wrong again ...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong again ...
By evildorf on 7/17/2008 3:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Mr. Asher, please explain how the stance of the APS has been reversed if its position statement has not changed. A reader of your blog (without doing further research) is left with the impression that the APS has abandoned its previous position in its entirety, which is nowhere close to the truth of the matter.
Also, I am unaware of an official APS position that prohibited papers that called into question the conclusions of the IPCC report and was unable to find such a policy on record, though my search was, I'm sure, far from complete. If you have a credible source on your assertion, I would be interested in reading it.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Rosaline on 7/18/2008 6:19:08 AM , Rating: 2
Seconded.

He seems to have some problem understanding that scientists are not 'changing their stance' when they question pre-existing conclusions, that is how it is supposed to be done. There is nothing sensational or even really that news worthy in scientists wanting to be scientists.

This sort of thing is tabloid coverage of science, and it is quite worrying to see a respected website used as a platform for such misunderstandings - especially since the author has continued to protest the absolute truth of their post despite an official statement from the APA to the opposite.

Like all good science people, I would like to see a reference for the assertion that dissenting papers were denied publication for no reason other than their dissent. It is, in this regard, a shame that the common peer review process tends to be closed, rather than open and revealing to the world the issues with denied papers, and opening up the peer review process itself for peer review.


RE: Wrong again ...
By DTreen on 7/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Wrong again ...
By plinkplonk on 7/17/2008 1:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
it difficult fault your accuracy of language :)


RE: Wrong again ...
By Yossarian22 on 7/17/2008 2:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
"the sword of truth and trusty shield of honesty"?

A tad bit melodramatic, don't you think?


RE: Wrong again ...
By TheDoc9 on 7/17/2008 2:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the sword of truth and trusty shield of honesty.


It would be a great title for the next stargate movie.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Symmetriad on 7/17/2008 5:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why not ask why so many DT members simply follow Asher around from article to article with idiotic Al Gore jokes? Surely a legitimate critical response is more desirable than a bunch of sycophants circlejerking all over every one of his articles. The same should apply to anybody who desires any kind of journalistic credibility.


RE: Wrong again ...
By just4U on 7/17/2008 9:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
You get the odd screwball comment in just about every topic but they don't represent the majority of the responses.


RE: Wrong again ...
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 4:54:12 AM , Rating: 1
The information in this article is not accurate. In the APS website there's a notice denying this. This view represents only one member opinion that he wrote in an article. In no way it represents de official stand of the APS. The offcial point of view of the APS is that global warming is cause by man made CO2 emissions.

For more info check their website: http://www.aps.org/

Sorry Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck uneducated followers


RE: Wrong again ...
By domeika on 7/22/2008 6:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Typical of you and the rest of the sky is falling crowd to point to this and that and the guy's credibility but what I haven't heard is that you checked the math yourself. Unlike you, I can't give an answer on this just yet because unlike you, I don't blindly follow. I'm going to run these equations myself and let the chips fall where they may.
Also, I'm not an O'Reilly fan, I like Beck, and I am a Limbaugh subscriber.
Replies will go un-answered....I have a life.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 9:09:00 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry Michael but I have to disagree with you on this one. This blog post is just flat out wrong. There is no 'sea of change' of policy here, just scientists discussing science. Something that has long since become irrelevant to BOTH sides of the climate change debate.

I applaud the fact that you did post an 'update' to correct the error, but really one should put more then a few minutes of research into things BEFORE making a post before just mindlessly repeating someone else's nonsense. I read most of your posts and agree with some of your points, but when you post things just because they happen to support your point of view, despite the fact that they are factually incorrect, I quickly lose respect.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:06:01 AM , Rating: 2
The entire "science" consensus is an attempt to make invalid modeling and forecasting acceptable.

It is a PRIME ERROR to use "fit" to adjust a working model. The ONLY valid use for that technique, which is fundamental to what IPCC claims to have done, is to suggest possible relationships and hypotheses for inclusion in a coherent model. It is DEATH to use anything but explicit Popper-disprovable hypotheses and mathematical relationships in a predictive model. At most it becomes a disguised elaboration of the opinions of the "composer". At worst, an algebraic tautology.

The reason is that the process of "fitting" radically narrows the scope of the model to extant cases with their inherent limitations on significant digits of measurement. Attempts to extrapolate will spiral into more and more "by-hand" fittings until you are left with a Rube Goldberg contraption of weakly descriptive constraints with zero predictive power.

Which is the condition reached some time ago by the IPCC models. The egregious "sensitivity" plugs, and the reversed sign on the high-level albedo effect, are just two risible but deadly symptoms.


RE: Wrong again ...
By phxfreddy on 7/17/2008 8:30:54 PM , Rating: 1
The Good physicists know its a hoax ! .... You can see Freemon Dyson, cohort of Feynman and other titans of 20th century physics think the claims are invalid and you can watch him here:

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


RE: Wrong again ...
By porkpie on 7/17/2008 8:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Freeman Dyson, and 9,100 other Ph.D's all agree its a hoax:

http://www.petitionproject.com


RE: Wrong again ...
By derwoodman on 7/18/2008 11:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
I like this one even better:

http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/

I caught someone from there on a radio show in Tacoma Washington. He was only a little crazy (like howard dean crazy not Charles Manson crazy) but I'll be damned if he didn't make sense!


RE: Wrong again ...
By 4play on 7/18/2008 11:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, this post points out how incorrect the article is, provides links to back up the statements. And yet it went from a rating of 5 to -1.

Recap: Masher writes article saying that the APS has reversed its stance when it has not, jbartabas points this out, people read his post rate him up to 5, In the afternoon masher fanboys get home and automatically rate him down.

Wow, just wow. Don't get me wrong I like masher's articles, when they're correct, and I like the debate, but these blind followers of him are just retards. Meantime they rate up each other in their self love fest above (see "How many more nails? ") Typical reaction that adds nothing to the discussion yet gets rated into the sky for simply showing an arrogant attitude towards MMGW advocates.

So sad.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Eri Hyva on 7/18/2008 12:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly my point, too.

jbartabas corrected twisted titles and points made by masher2 and got heavily punished for that. Oh dear.

From 5 -> -1, that's really amazing, I noticed that too.

[BTW: masher2: your hidden agenda hasn't been hidden for ages.]


RE: Wrong again ...
By Arctucas on 7/18/2008 2:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Help me out here..

Where exactly y in the quote you posted does it explicitly state that mankind is causing global warming?


RE: Wrong again ...
By Arctucas on 7/18/2008 2:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Help me out here..

Where exactly in the quote you posted does it explicitly state that mankind is causing global warming?


RE: Wrong again ...
By jbartabas on 7/18/2008 3:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Help me out here.. Where exactly in the quote you posted does it explicitly state that mankind is causing global warming?


Well, if you want to play that little game ...

Where exactly in the post you are replying to do I explicitly state that my quote shows that mankind is causing global warming?

My post merely states that the APS stance, whatever it is, has not been reversed and that the editorial and paper commented by M. Asher were from one forum unit which has much autonomy and which does not engage the APS position in climate change.

Then I reproduced the APS statement, so that anybody can make up his mind on what it really is.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Arctucas on 7/18/2008 6:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was asking a question, and you answer with another question.

So, let us continue in that vein shall we?

In your obviously well-informed opinion, is the Global Warming man-made or not?

There are two answers to choose from:

1) Yes, I believe Global Warming is caused by mankind.

2) No, I do not believe Global Warming is caused by mankind.


RE: Wrong again ...
By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 6:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
Your list of options posed scientifically...

1. Yes, I believe that global warming is probably caused by human activities.

2. No, I believe that global warming is probably not caused by human activities.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Rosaline on 7/18/2008 9:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
And then there is the irony in all of this, which even the editorial piece in question seems to agree with, of "does it even matter?"

Ultimately, it doesn't matter one bit. There is more to all the concerns here than just what is causing climate, environmental and resource changes. It helps no-one to simply question what causes these in a manner which promotes doing nothing about them, and that is the real problem with much of the coverage, even that which is well-written and scientifically sound.


While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/2008 1:17:58 AM , Rating: 1
with the idea that anthropogenic CO2 emissions is likely not the primary source of the increase in global warming during the period of the Industrial Revolution, I just wanted to point out that the post you are quoting from, is an Editor's Comment, and does not represent a "change in the viewpoint" of the entire APS, as it would take much more than the commentary of the editor to voice a change of opinion of over 10,000 APS members (and I think it's important to note that he also stated "considerable", and not "majority", so I believe the jury is still out regarding the APS' official viewpoint.

I also think in regards to this:
quote:
The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."


It's important to point out, that as far as I recall, their statement being that global warming evidence is incontrovertible, was a rather generic, all-inclusive statement, simply referring to what was this generally considered to be a strongly-supported stance: that data shows the earth is warming up, and warming up faster than previously recorded, and thus by definition, "global warming" is occurring. As far as I know, in regards to their generic viewpoint on the matter, it still hasn't changed - it's simply that they're calling into question the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit.

I'm glad though that they're not taking the path that many media, news and research outlets take in only publishing material from one side or the other (in this case, as you stated and as the Editor's Comment states, that they've published articles from members of both viewpoints, and now calling for rebuttals to those as well).




RE: While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/2008 1:21:40 AM , Rating: 5
Oh, and one other thing I forgot to add:

They're only calling into question the viewpoint regarding anthropogenic CO2. They're not questioning (neither disavowing or supporting) the impact of other green house gases from human origin (such as methane, CFCs, etc.)


RE: While I do agree...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2008 9:41:30 AM , Rating: 4
CO2 is a proxy for all GHG influences. The debate -- and the associated papers themselves -- speak to all greenhouse gases, not simply CO2 itself.


RE: While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: While I do agree...
By kbehrens on 7/18/2008 12:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
When they say "CO2", they generally mean CO2 equivalent, which is the sum of all greenhouse gases, converted into their equivalent mass of CO2. The debate is on the science behind radiative transfer and forcing from all GHGS, not just CO2 itself.


RE: While I do agree...
By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
That's rather a knotty little recursive problem then isn't it? Since there is vast territory between those who assert that CO2 is strongly linearly warming, and those who consider it to be weakly logarithmic, or even log-log, in its effects. Considering that water vapour has a much wider and deeper absorption spectrum, and that many of the most crucial parts of the atmosphere (tropical, where the sun shines brightest, have you heard?) are generally saturated with said vapour, at vastly higher concentrations than CO2 is found ANYWHERE, even in the hot air spouted by Hansen, it is fundamentally implausible that fluctuations in small fractions of 1% of the atmosphere could drive runaway -- or even significant -- heating. These guys remind me of the kids who got lost in grade school math when their comprehension of multiplication and division narrowed to rote repetition of steps in a procedure, and never had a clue about whether the resultant was "reasonable" in magnitude. Modern equivalents are those who can't tell if their calculators' answers are off by an order, or several orders, of magnitude because a wrong key was touched.

Believe me, inability to do "reasonableness testing" is a sign of faith in ritual replacing reason.

Climatology has here branded itself "pseudo-science", little better than economics or psychology. It will be long and long, recovering.


RE: While I do agree...
By jbartabas on 7/17/2008 12:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just wanted to point out that the post you are quoting from, is an Editor's Comment, and does not represent a "change in the viewpoint" of the entire APS, as it would take much more than the commentary of the editor to voice a change of opinion of over 10,000 APS members


I do agree. And it is obvious that not all members of APS are convinced that GW is mostly due to greenhouse gas, but the stance of the APS as an entity is what it is, and it is not being reversed by the current issue of FPS.

quote:
It's important to point out, that as far as I recall, their statement being that global warming evidence is incontrovertible,


I have posted their statement in another post. I think your interpretation is correct.

quote:
it's simply that they're calling into question the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit.


That's what they do (I will jump ahead to your next comment and say that I believe that by CO2 they mean GHG in general for this debate). It's worth noting that GHG are identified by the IPCC itself as being part of the culprit with less certainty than there is about the climate being warmer. So debates to know exactly what part GHG play in GW are in no way "heretic" in the scientific community.


RE: While I do agree...
By Fluxion on 7/17/2008 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's worth noting that GHG are identified by the IPCC itself as being part of the culprit with less certainty than there is about the climate being warmer. So debates to know exactly what part GHG play in GW are in no way "heretic" in the scientific community.


While I do wish they'd clarify over whether anthropogenic CO2 is actually in reference to GHGs in general, or if they're specifically targetting CO2, I do agree.

I would honestly hope that no one here would be ignorant enough to believe that global warming isn't occurring. It is, and evidence supports that. We also know that atmospheric concentrations of such GHGs as methane, N2O and CO2 are at their highest levels since 700,000 years ago at least, and that humanity is largely responsible for that increase.

Now, what we don't know, is the extent of the impact such GHGs have had as part of the on-going climate change. I tend to be skeptical of long-range forecasts, and so for me it's hard to trust computer model forecasts for decades if not hundreds of years from now. However, I also knew some very intelligent climatologists during my time in college, who strongly believed that humanity's industrialization will ultimately lead to profound changes in the earth's climate.

Even if we're not the primary catalyst for any major changes in the earth's climate, we'll have contributed considerably to that change, and it's ignorant for anyone to state that we shouldn't be taking measures to reduce our output of GHGs. What's next, denials of mass extinctions occurring?


RE: While I do agree...
By ilovephysics on 7/17/2008 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Fluxion, just bothered to create an account here at "Daily Tech" for the sole purpose of applauding your stamina in defending the facts. Thank you.


RE: While I do agree...
By porkpie on 7/17/2008 8:52:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I would honestly hope that no one here would be ignorant enough to believe that global warming isn't occurring. It is.
It was at least. Its a bit unclear whether or not its still happening. Temps have dropped since 1998.


RE: While I do agree...
By kc77 on 7/18/2008 7:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Temps have dropped since 1998.
Huh?? No they haven't only if you look at 1998 and then 1999. But if you look at a ten year span say 1997 to 2005 it's still a hell of a lot hotter than say 1980.


RE: While I do agree...
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 9:28:46 PM , Rating: 4
1998 was indeed an abnormally warm year, just as 2008 has thus far been an abnormally cool year. However single years are meaningless within the discussion of average global temperature changes over a period of time. Really you can't get any meaningful measurement until at least 10 years, and even then it's extraordinarily limited.

Expanding the study to 50 years is more of a starting point, but ideally you want to study the world for millions of years.

If one does just that, we can see that the earth has gone through a LOT of temperature cycles, most of which were clearly NOT man-made. That's not to say that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions aren't contributing to our current climate, more simply that climate DOES change and our impact is only going to be one of MANY factors involved. Trying to figure out just where we fit in to that whole equation is a matter of importance to science.

Are we just a tiny spec in a giant sea of things or a dominant factor? And will cutting GHG output by 20 or even 50% do much of anything? Those are questions I couldn't answer myself, but fortunately there are a few good scientists left working on the problem. Sadly many otherwise good scientists have been taken in by one of two competing religions and are so firmly entrenched in their beliefs that they refuse to do their jobs properly for fear that it will either prove or disprove (depending on which religion they follow) global climate change.


RE: While I do agree...
By Arctucas on 7/18/2008 3:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
So...

700,000 years, hmm?

Those damn dirty cavemen!

They are the bastards that started all this Global Warming!


RE: While I do agree...
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 10:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are the bastards that started all this Global Warming!


No, it was the Liberal cavemen in 50,000 BC that started this whole global warming thing. "What's happening to the ice?" "I don't know, must be the fire. Before us there was no fire. The fire melts the ice. Must be us! We'd better cut down on our fires."

Conservative caveman: "Hey, I will start a fire where and when I want one! First it's 'don't kill off all the mammoths', and now this!"


The Kool Aid is Good
By gmw1082 on 7/17/2008 7:46:18 AM , Rating: 1
When will all you global warming deniers accept the truth that human are causing the problem? We need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere before we all bake to death. Also I heard dihydrogen monoxide is a much worse greenhouse gas so we need to eliminate that as well. Can't you see the world will be a much better place when everything runs on sunshine and dreams?

/sarcasm for those who are dense.




RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By Fox5 on 7/17/2008 8:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
H2O is apparently a pretty bad green house gas.


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By myhipsi on 7/17/2008 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
Your right, water vapour is actually 3 to 4 times more potent a green house gas as C02 is. What we all really need to do is stop breathing, after all we exhale water vapour and CO2, a potent concoction of green house gas.


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By plinkplonk on 7/17/2008 1:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
furthermore cows either need to stop farting or we need to eat them all, all that deadly methane :(


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By Denigrate on 7/17/2008 3:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
I vote for eating them all. Of course, we won't get there because they keep reproducing, but we can sure try! Mmmm, Cow!


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By Jorik on 7/17/2008 7:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
or we could attach auto-igniters to their tails to burn off the methane... ;-)


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By calvin0007 on 7/18/2008 6:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
I like your idea... It could be worth a million dollars. Better patent it before the gure of global warming (Al Gore) does.


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By FITCamaro on 7/17/2008 8:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
I personally think we could power the country off the hot air politicians and the media spew out their various orifices.


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By fictisiousname on 7/17/2008 9:38:18 AM , Rating: 4
True. And the brilliance behind the plan to build a wind farm in Ted Kennedy's back yard. You did notice HE wasn't too keen on that idea?

BTW, and off topic, Ted didn't follow the protocol prescribed in his Universal Health Care initiative when HE needed health care.


RE: The Kool Aid is Good
By porkpie on 7/17/2008 9:47:01 AM , Rating: 3
There actually are a few environmentalists that believe in what they preach. Like the Unabomer, Ted Kaczynski.

Grow all your own food, live out in the middle of nowhere in a shack without electricity or power . . . and send pipe bombs to anyone whose carbon footprint is too large!


bah
By acejj26 on 7/17/2008 1:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
Physicists don't know anything about global dynamics. Al Gore knows all.




RE: bah
By nstott on 7/17/2008 1:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
All hail Man-Bear-Pig!


RE: bah
By just4U on 7/17/2008 1:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
So Sayeth the flock!


RE: bah
By grenableu on 7/17/2008 9:58:27 AM , Rating: 3
When Al Gore stops using as much energy as a small city, I might start listening to him.

On second thought, maybe not.


RE: bah
By jbartabas on 7/17/2008 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
[...] I might start listening to him. [...] On second thought, maybe not.


Wow, you have surprised me for one second!


RE: bah
By Jim28 on 7/23/2008 8:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
He is still correct.

The "spokesman" of AGW is definitely not practicing what he preaches, and if he wants to reach people he should eat his own dog food.


My God! Drudge report sucked out your brains!
By James T on 7/17/2008 9:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
The thesis of this article is entirely refuted, both in the article itself and at the APS web site.

In small print, the article says "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."

If you go to the APS web site, it says:

" 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."

So when the Drudge Report claims: "Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Opens Global Warming Debate..." that statement is completely false.

When the article states: "The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change..." that statement is also completely false.

Just because someone is a member of a group, that does not mean that any opinion he expresses represents the views of the group as a whole. For example, just because I am a citizen of the US, that doesn't mean that my opinions represent the views of all 300,000,000 Americans.




RE: My God! Drudge report sucked out your brains!
By grenableu on 7/17/2008 9:44:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So when the Drudge Report claims: "Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Opens Global Warming Debate..." that statement is completely false.
/shakes head. The APS opened a debate on global warming. That's a fact. No question.

quote:
just because I am a citizen of the US, that doesn't mean that my opinions represent the views of all 300,000,000 Americans
But this wasn't just a "member" of the APS. It was one of their own officers, and he made it publicly on their own site, in the course of performing his duties. If the Secretary of State is sent overseas and makes a public statement, its normally taken to be an official statement of the US Government.

It seems the APS heard about this story and decided to disavow their own editor. That's fine. But the statements were still made.


By jbartabas on 7/18/2008 11:48:03 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
But this wasn't just a "member" of the APS. It was one of their own officers, and he made it publicly on their own site, in the course of performing his duties. If the Secretary of State is sent overseas and makes a public statement, its normally taken to be an official statement of the US Government.


If you find an official statement somewhere that says:

"The Secretary of State conducts its own activities and function with much autonomy. Opinions expressed are those of the Secretary of State alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US government", then I may reconsider your idiotic comparison ...


By co2isgood on 7/18/2008 2:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
YeYo keeps posting the same link over and over! No ones saying the APS has instantly changed its position on AGW, only that it is finally being unbiasedly debated within the scientific community. This should be good news for all truth seekers!




By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: No one is continuing to claim that the APS has changed its position on AGW.


By YEYO on 7/18/2008 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 1
co2isgood? is that your motto? What do you have to loose from a cleaner planet? Most people agree that fighting global warming is going to create thousands of new jobs, a new industry, and many more economic advantages to our country. The only ones to loose are the oil companies. If you don't work for Exxon there's no point for you to promote a dirtier planet.

Don't get me wrong. I wish man made global warming was a myth, but most leaders of the free world agree. Including the U.S., England, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, etc. Not even George W. Bush disagree with the science (even though his not willing to act to not affect his friends). But is not only this countries, is also the EPA, NASA, the UN and pretty much every collage graduated scientist that is not in Exxon's payroll.

So what's your point? Why are you so obsessed with this? I don't get what do you have to win of all this.

Oh, and by the way. I just didn't put the link in this forum. I also send it to Matt Drudge. He removed the link to this post this morning.


By kbehrens on 7/18/2008 8:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you have to loose from a cleaner planet?
CO2 isn't a pollutant for one. It's plant fertilizer, and it comes out of everyone's mouths.

What do we have to lose from stopping CO2 emissions? Oh, just the entire benefits of the industrial revolution, and our entire modern lifestyle. Not that much, right?


APS debate
By co2isgood on 7/18/2008 3:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
The article only says that APS is finally opening up AGW to scientific debate. Not that it has changed its stance on AGW. There is a sizeable amount of scientific evidence to show that a trace amount of CO2 gas in earth's atmosphere, less than 380PPM, of which only about 80PPM may be man made, is causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Debate should be welcomed by those who seek the truth.




RE: APS debate
By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 3:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly, you have read only the title of the article and reactions to it.

The first line of the article...

quote:
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.


Okay?


RE: APS debate
By YEYO on 7/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: APS debate
By masher2 (blog) on 7/19/2008 1:39:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But is not only this countries, is also the EPA, NASA, the UN and pretty much every collage graduated scientist that is not in Exxon's payroll.
I'm sorry, but this isn't even close to correct. As the APS editor quoted in this article points out, there is a "substantial presence" of skeptics. I personally have interviewed a large number of them...some of which are UN IPCC expert reviewers or employees of NASA themselves. At the 2008 climate conference in NYC, over 100 Ph.D-level scientists attended...and over 400 more publicly voiced their opposition to AGW alarmism in 2007 alone:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

quote:
Most people agree that fighting global warming is going to create thousands of new jobs, a new industry, and many more economic advantages to our country
Most economists agree that carbon emission restriction is one of the costliest actions possible for loss of economic growth. The cost of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation alone was rated at $3 trillion dollars...which helps to explain why it was roundly voted down by Congress recently.


RE: APS debate
By JustTom on 7/20/2008 12:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cost of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation alone was rated at $3 trillion dollars...which helps to explain why it was roundly voted down by Congress recently.


Nice to know that there is a limit even to Congress' need to waste my money.


APS Climate Change Statement
By CynthiaCyndi on 7/17/2008 7:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.aps.org/

On the front page of the APS website there is a statement as follows:

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.

There is a link at the bottom of the official APS statement if anyone cares to read the truth and understand why CO2 emissions are damaging Earth.




RE: APS Climate Change Statement
By atrabilious on 7/17/2008 11:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if anyone cares to read the truth and understand why CO2 emissions are damaging Earth.

The official APS position is:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”


That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of the IPCC position. It makes no reference to how much, whether or not its dangerous or helpful, etc.


RE: APS Climate Change Statement
By jbartabas on 7/18/2008 12:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
No, that's the introduction line of the statement. The full statement can be found there:

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

I'll let you decide if it's in line in any way with the IPCC position.


AGW
By NickInVirginia on 7/18/2008 2:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I'm just too simplistic to understand all this global warming stuff. After all, hearing that there is evidence of global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, makes me think that the guys on THOSE planets should be the first to ditch their SUVs. As long as they keep polluting the solar system with their carbon emissions, nothing we do on Earth is going to have a significant impact.

Maybe we can send Al Gore to Uranus to solve the problem there first.




RE: AGW
By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 2:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NickInVirginia on July 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM

I guess I'm just too simplistic to understand all this global warming stuff.



Yeah... that might be right.


RE: AGW
By Arctucas on 7/18/2008 3:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe we can send Al Gore to Uranus to solve the problem there first.


But first, he would need to pull his head head our of his.


Holy Batman!
By Eri Hyva on 7/18/2008 2:53:40 PM , Rating: 1
Hey everyone, please use 5min of your life to check this, it's really worth it. Nasher's distinguished source Lord Monckton of Brenchley... Well, what can you say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,...

and like Plughead told already:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1...

This is priceless!!!! What a clown!!! No degree in science, whatsoever. And he is "challenging" hundreds of physicists.

And his main income seems to creating jigsaws and sudokus.... Wow. But
quote:
he is reportedly known to his nieces and nephews as 'Mr Knowledge'


You two funny brothers, Michael and Christopher, Monckton is a "journalist", too. At least he has a diploma in journalism. And a degree in classics. That's all his "scientific" background.

I have been laughing for a half an hour reading through different gems from Monckton (links in wiki)

An aristocrat from England with too much time available. Kind of sad. Or. Very. Funny.

Holy cow.

(
Hey Asher, a good time for a summer holiday? And apologies for lowest quality "journalism"? Waste of everyone's time.
)




RE: Holy Batman!
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 3:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Good job Eri. Keep it up.


RE: Holy Batman!
By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 3:08:12 PM , Rating: 3
Wow! And here I thought that Roy Spencer, who once wrote that Intelligent Design is no less scientific than the theory of evolution, is the silliest of the bunch and along comes Lord Monkeypants.


Hilarity is...
By yacoub on 7/17/2008 5:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
The Drudge Report is quoting your blog as a news source. That's priceless.




RE: Hilarity is...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/17/2008 9:50:33 PM , Rating: 1
Well, the NYT and the WSJ have quoted from this column in the past, so I suppose Drudge is in good company here.


RE: Hilarity is...
By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
No, that puts him in very bad company.


APS has refuted this!
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 4:51:45 AM , Rating: 1
The information in this article is not accurate. In the APS website there's a notice denying this. This view represents only one member opinion that he wrote in an article. In no way it represents de official stand of the APS. The offcial point of view of the APS is that global warming is cause by man made CO2 emissions.

For more info check their website: http://www.aps.org/

Sorry Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck uneducated followers




RE: APS has refuted this!
By DPercy on 7/26/2008 4:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
You and they are whacked, the is no foundation for the "caused by man claim. What they think has not been proven. If it leaks out that CO2 follows the temperature, they stand to lose a fair amount of grant money, not to mention looking like snake oil pushers.


RE: APS has refuted this!
By DPercy on 7/26/2008 4:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
You and they are whacked, the is no foundation for the "caused by man claim. What they think has not been proven. If it leaks out that CO2 follows the temperature, they stand to lose a fair amount of grant money, not to mention looking like snake oil pushers.


By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 1:39:21 PM , Rating: 5
Greetings, Mr. Asher.

Did you get a headline at Drudge Report? That is what you're after, is it not?




Arguement Check
By deloprator20000 on 7/18/2008 9:00:11 PM , Rating: 3
If anyone had bothered to read the APS report you will find that only a couple of scientists disagree while most still support G-Warming:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080718-aps-...

Simply because some people disagree with a theory does not imply the theory is true or not true. Heck you can find scientists to support almost any theory you want, you can find scientists that disagree with even well established theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics, in either case it does not completely invalidate the theories.

No theory is perfect including General relativity and quantum mechanics yet both provide adequate approximations within their realms of applicability. Same goes for global warming theory, within specified limits it gives us adequate approximation to past, present and future climate.

IN any case if you believe that your arguments against global warming are so compelling then they should stand up to scrutiny, tell them to actual climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/

In addition you should visit the following webpage:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics




RE: Arguement Check
By DPercy on 7/26/2008 4:23:03 AM , Rating: 2
A couple? That means 2. Maybe in San Fran or Portland you could snow someone with that, they are already Gore followers.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us


God what an embarrassment.
By eskimospy on 7/20/2008 3:00:56 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously. You post a horribly misleading article, and when proven wrong you issue a half hearted 'correction' at the bottom and leave the rest of it up. How can anyone take what you write seriously after something like this?




By The Night Owl on 7/21/2008 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing that the people who run Daily Tech don't mind Mr. Asher putting out misinformation as long as it brings traffic from big sites like Drudge Report.


RE: God what an embarrassment.
By tigen on 7/22/2008 9:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
This is completely ridiculous... masher's "correction" is only a half-correction because it implies the Forum has a contrary view, but is merely part of the APS. The actual statement from APS is:

"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."


Monckton replies
By stocks321 on 7/20/2008 4:58:39 PM , Rating: 3
The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines. I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper.

The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain.

The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

"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.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper;

If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts:

primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had;

secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and,

tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?




RE: Monckton replies
By porkpie on 7/20/2008 6:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
National Review is calling this the "PeerGate scandal" for the APS's shocking actions. Congrats to DT for breaking the story first!


global warming
By kkurtt on 7/17/2008 8:38:25 PM , Rating: 4
Wow--all planets warmed at the same rate--just goes to show you that human carbon footprints are everywhere.

hmmmmm.




Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
By KarlWhit on 7/18/2008 12:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, Version 2.0 (July 24, 2007), Gerhard Gerlich, Institut fur Mathematische Physik, Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina, Federal Republic of Germany, g.gerlich@tu-bs.de; and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Federal Republic of Germany, ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov.

“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33o C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

You can find the study at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161.

Best Regards – Karl.




RE: Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
By Andy35W on 7/19/2008 4:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's been proved to be wrong, that's the problem with arxiv papers, no peer review.



The propaganda continues...
By Karmakaze on 7/19/2008 12:39:03 AM , Rating: 1
If DailyTech doesn't wish to be known as blatant lying propagandists, they should do a MUCH better job of correcting this nearly TOTALLY FALSE article that has clearly been written with a considerable bias.

For example it mentions the article by Christopher Monckton critical of the IPCC's report, but fails to even mention the article in the SAME ISSUE and part of the SAME DEBATE by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, supporting the IPCC's conclusions.

Why was this balancing article left out of DailyTech's article? Clearly the author HAD to know about it because it is mentioned in the same editorial as is linked in the article.

The only conclusion I can come to is that it was an intentional effort to mislead the reader as to what was actually occurring in that journal.

Add to that that the DailyTech article claims a reversal when in fact the editorial says nothing more than that they feel a debate should be opened and made the first steps in the two articles with opposing viewpoints.

Finally, by placing the "update" (not "correction") at the bottom of the article the author and or editor is attempting to ensure that the majority of readers never see it. All media people know that very few readers actually read an entire article from top to bottom, with the vast majority reading only the first paragraph or two.

This article from DailyTech is yet more of the unscientific propaganda that is being force-fed us by the elites that profit off of destroying the planet, and every one of the people commenting here who didn't take the 3 seconds it takes to click the link to the source editorial and actually read it have managed to make themselves look like idiots.




RE: The propaganda continues...
By Karmakaze on 7/19/2008 12:49:58 AM , Rating: 1
I know it is bad form to reply to my own post, but not being able to edit, I am forced to add some more information proving that this article is full of lies.

I had not yet read Monckton's article as linked in the DailyTech article at the time of my last post, but I just had to point out that Forum on Physics & Society society shows how responsible journalism should be done - it puts the correction in RED at the TOP of Monckton's article (I assume in attempt to correct the errors in this article):

"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"
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/mo...

Case closed.


RE: The propaganda continues...
By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
With this topic, for both IPCC and APS, "peer review" is code for a gatekeeping blockade of dissent. Nice work if you can get it.


The consensus still stands: NOT myth.
By FilmRanger on 7/19/2008 2:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
Only ONE member wrote, and three members believe that the APS consensus on human activity induced global warming was a "myth". (Of 50,000 members)
American Physical Society actually said:
"National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
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."




By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, facts don't give a rat's about votes or consensus.

I see near extinction of the species Corvus by the time these boffins are finished.


Masher...
By SilthDraeth on 7/21/2008 10:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you Masher for updating your article/blog once it was known that additional facts were available.




RE: Masher...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/22/2008 3:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome. More facts are actually still coming out. Assuming some interviews fall into place, we should have a very interesting update coming shortly.


By Parker75 on 7/21/2008 12:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to stop publishing this guy's articles. Michael Asher has an agenda to push the global warming issue out of the headlines. All this guy ever does is post blogs about how bogus "global warming" is and never portrays the issue on equal footing. This isn't journalism. You might as well call it Op Ed.




By Parker75 on 7/21/2008 12:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
Search Michael Asher and read all the articles this guy has written and you'll see what Michael Asher is all about.


By Parker75 on 7/21/2008 12:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Someone really should start a petition to stop Michael Asher from publishing his articles as news. Put his articles on editorial section where it belongs PLEASE!!! Don't post this garbage and say this is objective journalism.




By The Night Owl on 7/21/2008 7:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that the people at Daily Tech would welcome a petition against Mr. Asher's work because such a petition would serve only to draw traffic to DT.

The most one can do try to stop the misinformation at DT is to remind Mr. Asher that his readers aren't as stupid as he apparently thinks they are.


APS Position Remains Unchanged
By Biting dog on 7/24/2008 11:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
Don't necessarily beleive everything you read. Check out the website of the APS:

"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."




By homebredcorgi on 7/25/2008 3:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for pointing this out.

Seriously, throw this article in the shredder. It is garbage, plain and simple. The two sentence "update" that points out the APS basically denies everything in the article is not enough. At best the author misinterpreted another author's opinion for that of the entire APS but I'm leaning more toward intentional misrepresentation given the ridiculous title. This is like reading the Weekly World News but it isn't funny or creative. ("Al Gore is the Abominable Snowman & Global Warming Will Kill Him!")

What is DT's bizarre obsession with debunking global warming? Clearly a bunch of IT guys know more than the evil climatologists! What a load...go back to the Windows vs. Linux vs Mac debates. At least those can be funny.


By tudderj on 7/17/2008 7:01:45 PM , Rating: 3
The ice core data cited by Gore and many of the anthropogenic Global Warming disciples actually points to temperature leading CO2 as opposed to CO2 causing the temperature rise. "scientists" know that the oceans absorb CO2 at a faster rate during cooler periods. It follows, "as night the day", that during warmer periods the CO2 will concentrate in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations are not the cause of warming, they are the result!




Global Warming Myth
By docdark on 7/17/2008 10:13:06 PM , Rating: 1
All I know is once the global warming urban myth is exposed - someone needs to sue Al Gore PERSONALLY for the damage he and his fellow panic generating liars have done to the world economy with their made up global warming stories.




RE: Global Warming Myth
By Continuum01 on 7/18/2008 9:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe we should expose the myth that you have a brain. Go to the APS website and see what their position really is. The info quote in this article is the opinion of one guy who has been denying global warming for years. The only thing new is that it continues to demonstrate that you people don't know how to read. Well, on second thought, I guess that's not really news.


deliberate scaremongering
By ralpherus on 7/18/2008 1:30:55 AM , Rating: 3
All the cheap powertripping evil scum who promoted the entire
"let's control the world by scaring people into submission" set should be hoisted to about ten feet, coated in gasoline, and lit. That may warm the world some..it would warm the spirits of our forebears who died figghting evil empires.




DailyTech's Inaccurate Headline
By Continuum01 on 7/18/2008 9:03:09 AM , Rating: 3
If you actually go to the American Physical Society's webpage you will find that your headline DOES NOT accurately portray their position:

This is copied from that website.

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.




Nobel Peace Prize
By andyville on 7/18/2008 12:27:30 PM , Rating: 1
Does this mean Al Gore will return the medal and the money??




RE: Nobel Peace Prize
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 1:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.
This objections would be noteworthy if they did not sweek under the rug all of the incorrect information in the public domain such as Gore's stupid movie.
(Do as I say not as I do!)

If I could rate you up I would.


When I was a kid . . .
By flataffect on 7/18/2008 8:57:43 PM , Rating: 3
A lot of us worried about being destroyed in a thermonuclear war with the Soviets. After 9/11 we were worried about being killed by terrorists.

But never in my wildest dreams did I think that America would just give up on the things that made it grow to the world's lone superpower and just crawl off and die. Whether man made global warming is real or not, it's beginning to look as though that's the only solution acceptable to our media and our science-politico elites.




By commonsenseman on 7/17/2008 5:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you all should check out the APS home page. Straight from the horses mouth:
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.




Scam
By sunshine484848 on 7/17/2008 8:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
...and Gore is laughing all the way to the bank!!




rah rah
By BAFrayd on 7/17/2008 11:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the old days, people used to just go to church... or a football game.




By Right Thinker on 7/18/2008 12:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
Does this mean that Al Gore has to give his Nobel Prize money and medal back? It must be a real blow to the eogs of all the doomsayers to learn that we mere mortal humans can't do the damage to the planet that they hoped we could.
What will when they find out how large Earth's oil reserves really are?
Hopefully, they can take on a real challange now, like getting all of these ridiculous "reality shows" off Television.




By Floridian madmen on 7/18/2008 12:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
Here is a new one to drive them nuts!

Martin Wild, an atmospheric scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and an author on one of the reports that states that with the cleaner air more solar radiation is reaching the ground in urban areas where most of the weather stations are recording the highest temperature gains.

Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't!




By hereticnyc on 7/18/2008 2:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
but have you considered that while you are chortling that the still unproven hypothesis has now been opened up to debate by physicists, a group more competent than most in keeping reason on the rails, that we should all hope that Gore is right?

For if the Great Bloviator is wrong, then we are all doomed to suffer warming without the least ability to ameliorate it.




Global Warming/Cooling
By NCSDCA on 7/18/2008 3:28:20 AM , Rating: 2
I once said 'dihydrogen oxide', but was corrected by my son who said 'Hydrogen Hydroxide'. He was correct.

I wish to thank all those emit both hydrogen hydroxide and carbon dioxide for the increased growth of food crops in recent years. But now the Earth is cooling.

http://NCSDCA.home.att.net/opinion/GlobalWarming.h...




APS has refuted this!
By YEYO on 7/18/2008 4:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
The information in this article is not accurate. In the APS website there's a notice denying this. This view represents only one member opinion that he wrote in an article. In no way it represents de official stand of the APS. The offcial point of view of the APS is that global warming is cause by man made CO2 emissions.

For more info check their website: http://www.aps.org/

Sorry Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck uneducated followers




Job Creation via Global Warming
By jjohn143 on 7/18/2008 6:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think most people miss the global view of global warming. The western world is in die need of jobs, jobs that won't leave to the next low-wage country. We need jobs that will stay local. The global warming fallacy will provide these jobs, of course from the tax dollars of its citizens. You see there will always be another China, a country with the ability to produce cheaper manufactured goods, one that we in the western world cannot compete with. But we must have jobs, so what will they be? We cannot all have economies based on banking and insurance, hence Global Warming to the rescue. Living in Michigan USA where we broke every snowfall record recorded but 1 (and only missed it by .1 inch) and regularly setting cold temperature records, the true believers claim this is from global warming, like night is caused from day, sure, I understand.

We have no control of the suns output and the naysayers claim CO2 pollution is causing warming? If anything it has been proved that pollution blocks the suns rays from hitting the earth and sea, causing less evaporation, hence less rain, and then droughts. When I speak with GW theorists I often ask how they know the earth is not supposed to be warmer than what is acceptable for human life?

In the US, the big fight is about drilling for oil in the arctic. Oil, a fossil fuel, how did it get there if it was always covered with ice? Evidently that area was teaming with life sometime prior to the presence of man and his wretched automobiles. And for the people of religion who believe in GW, do you really think, excuse me, are you so egotistical that you actually believe we could really affect anything God has created? Do you believe that we as just another inconsequential species living here, that we have any real affect on anything?

This is the next boon for Job creation though and as my sister warned me, you don’t have to believe in it, but it is not going away, we need the jobs!




Al Gore the grand flim flam man
By calvin0007 on 7/18/2008 6:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
The truth is slowly coming out and Al Gore is in Washington yesterday trying to stampeded all the sheep to pass laws now. Very much like a crooked used car dealer. Get you to sign off as quickly as possible before you find a problem.




By oracle2world on 7/18/2008 8:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
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."

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) doctrine is that more of mankind's CO2 = higher temperatures.

The APS official statement merely says "ways that affect the Earth's climate". Nothing about actually CHANGING climate, only affecting climate.

Nothing about temperature up or down, or about temperature at all.

Or anything quantitative. Insignificant effect, measurable effect, major effect, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it?

This does not even say increased CO2 is from fossil fuel burning.

In fact, the way this is worded, I don't see how anyone could disagree with it, no matter what their thoughts on climate change are.

If proponents of AGW believe this CYA non-specific weasal-worded statement is an endorsement of AGW in any way shape or form ... they are mistaken.




The Hegellian Dialectic of AGW
By jimpeel on 7/18/2008 11:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Anthropogenic Global Warming, now "climate change", is a Hegellian Dialectic wherein the authors create a crisis for which they have a preconceived "solution". When the crisis fails to manifest itself, the authors take credit for their "solution" having prevented the crisis thereby gleaning power and/or money for themselves.




Changing official stances.
By Brian H on 7/18/2008 3:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
What would the sequence for changing an official stance be?
1. No discussion allowed.
2. A few opposing views allowed.
3. Developing support for one or more opposing views.
4. A statement that no conclusion could be supported at this time.
5. Agreement that another view was now the best-supported one.

APS is somewhere in the 2-3 range. But a lot of grant money and many professional reputations are at stake.

OTOH, the discomfort of being associated with the embarrassing IPCC-Gore scientific solecisms is increasing rapidly.




Another debacle
By Andy35W on 7/19/2008 4:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is not quite as bad as the blog that showed that a Dutch professor had shown sea level rises were overestimated. This proved to be a Prof who was misrepresented himself on papers, was into water divining and had even been investigated by James Randi!

In that context quoting someone who is summarised as

" has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications"

at least is slightly more respectable.

What's that scraping sound I can hear? Botton of barrel?

:D




Incredibly sloppy work.
By OldProgrammer on 7/21/2008 3:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

You really need to lose the sensational headline now, since it’s the premise of your article that has exploded.




The Reason for CGW
By murphyslabrat on 7/22/2008 3:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
very probably likely to be primarily responsible

Yeah....with waste like that, who CO2?




M Asher now has zero credibility.
By redsquid5 on 7/22/2008 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, lose the sensational headline. Even a quick read would reveal that this is a FORUM, not the entire APS; that the article is a single opinion, not the opinion of the Forum as a whole; that the purpose of the Forum is to invite debate, thus actively attracting a minority or discredited opinion to give it fair play.

As a scientist and engineer, I believe there is room for debate on the contributions of CO2 to global warming; but to represent this article as Asher has shows a total lack of integrity.

>> Republican for Obama




YeYo = broken record?
By CR67 on 7/23/2008 11:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how many more times YeYo is going to post the comment "the information in this post is wrong"?? LOL Why isn't anybody listening to him? lol :)




Yep!
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 10:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's ok everyone! Don't get rid of your Humvees and 1970s muscle cars! Don't abandon the drag races, NASCAR or even bother using *gasp*, PUBLIC TRANSIT...

We don't need ANY of that crap because we not only have unlimited oil supply, global warming has nothing to do with us! :D Yaay!




Compare the polar Ice yourself
By DPercy on 7/26/2008 4:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Use this link. Run the 30 day animation then you can compare to 1 year ago.

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html#nh...

For the QuickScat Sat images..follow this link.

http://manati.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/qscat_...

Some intresting climate studies here.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki