Post Reply
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View And the tide begins to turn!!!!! APS
6 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2008 - 6:51PM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,434
Well .....  I guess we can add a good percentage of the 50,000 physicists of the American Physics Society to the "denier" category.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

"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.”



Settled Physics .. eh!!!

Hope all those fools who lost $30K to someone on this board don't find this out and put those bets into context! :p
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2008 - 8:59PM #2
Bodean
Posts: 9,434
bump ...

Too important to let sink for those interested in the science. :D
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2008 - 11:32PM #3
Armwar
Posts: 12,019
uh oh, Bodean, I posted on the same subject...notice the flight of the bumbling buzzers?


Gail
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2008 - 11:34PM #4
Bodean
Posts: 9,434
[QUOTE=Armwar;632394]uh oh, Bodean, I posted on the same subject...notice the flight of the bumbling buzzers?


Gail[/QUOTE]

Great Minds think alike!  :D
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2008 - 12:21AM #5
eadler
Posts: 4,449
Bodean, Armwar,
You both missed the thread thread "CO2 effect overstated" started 3 days ago by HeldByGrace.
http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/s … hp?t=22698

The idea is to encourage a debate on the Physics and Society online journal. There were 2 papers that kicked off the discussion. The denier paper was submitted by Christopher Monckton, and has a lot of arguments that have been debunked over the past few years.

Please read the thread and the 2 papers in the link in my first post, and comment on the science, if you understand it.
If you have any rebuttal to the comments I made about Monckton's paper I would be interested to read it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2008 - 12:38AM #6
eadler
Posts: 4,449
[QUOTE=Bodean;631808]Well .....  I guess we can add a good percentage of the 50,000 physicists of the American Physics Society to the "denier" category.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

"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.”



Settled Physics .. eh!!!

Hope all those fools who lost $30K to someone on this board don't find this out and put those bets into context! :p[/QUOTE]

Science is full of people with  contrarian theories even after there is a consensus. Even Einstein didn't want to accept quantum theory as the last word, because it wasn't deterministic and he felt "God didn't play dice with the Universe". It has been many years since his death, and quantum theory is still the basic description of how the universe works.
With all the uproar and charges of politics and bias by the GW deniers, the editors decided that it  was a good idea to sponsor an exchange of views in a scientific journal. They want to keep the politics out and focus on the physics.

Watt's conclusion that the leadership who called the evidence of A G G E causing global warming is backing of is unsupported. The editorial board of science and society is not necessarily the same APS leadership that called the evidence incontrovertible. Watts  didn't identify the leadership or point to a real quote, so we really don't know who said what.

It is significant that Christopher Monckton, whose paper was chosen, is not a physicist and probably was never a member of the APS. He was majored in classics, was a journalist and is only an amateur scientist. He clearly fancies himself as a renaissance man. If there was a real physicist
who took the denier side, why wouldn't they have picked his/her paper?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2008 - 9:10AM #7
BeerLover
Posts: 1,227
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Looks like the APS is opening the matteer for debate.  You have a good point, Ea, in that the leaders of the APS characterized the the evidence as "incontrovertable" while the editorial board is opening the question for debate.  One thing I really like about you and Bodean is that you debate the science each with your own experts, interpretation of the data, and links to back it up.  I've learned a lot from reading your bantering back and forth.  Occasionally, the debate becomes a bit, um, acrimonious, but ffor the most part it's just a good scientific discussion.  Now the physicists at the APS are having their own debate as scientists do all the time.  Your atack on Watts seems valid to me, but the words of Marque are more difficult to dismiss, "...a considerable presence within the scientific community who do not agree..." 

Yes, keep making your arguments and rebutting the other's, do it respectfully, just as the larger scientific community is doing.  The science is far from settled, but that's part of the fun of being a scientist. 

BeerLover
[/FONT]
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2008 - 9:44AM #8
Bodean
Posts: 9,434
eadler .. that is the problem with "consensus" .. they are irrelevant in science.

Here's what I see .. .the progression of events.

- At ONE time, there was this GRAND CONSENSUS, that CO2 was the problem with climate.

- McKintyre found statistical and methodological mistakes in  the Hocky Stick.  This rattled the cage of the American Statistics group, who then became interested, and stimulated debate.  As a consequence, the Statistics used by Alarmist has come under scrutiny.  This illustrates there is NO CONSENSUS on the statistics used in Climate Science.

- Astrophysics groups around the world, who have never bought into the AGW theory, have steadily been comming out with Solar/Ocean coupled models, that are just as justified in science as AGW theory.  This illustrates there is NO CONSENSUS on the effects of Solar in Climate.

- Then we had the ICCC group meet in March with the Manhatten Declaration. Again, showing there is NO CONSENSUS amoung science in general on man made Climate change.

- Now we have desent in the ranks of physics, and it is acknowledged that many physicists do NOT share the view that CO2 is driving Climate.  This has resulted in a proclaimation of such, and the introduction of a DEBATE on the subject, which opens up a forum for all the physicists who do not agree!  Again, this shows there is NO CONSENSUS on the physics of Climate Science.


WHAT THIS ALL ILLUSTRATES .... is that at one time there was a GRAND CONSENSUS ... the position is moving AWAY from that!   The MUTED voices are beginning to be heard.  This is because, the climate is not responding according to theory.  There is no hot spot, the temp is cooling but CO2 is rising.  This is not supposed to be.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2008 - 11:07AM #9
eadler
Posts: 4,449
[QUOTE=Bodean;632887]eadler .. that is the problem with "consensus" .. they are irrelevant in science.

Here's what I see .. .the progression of events.

- At ONE time, there was this GRAND CONSENSUS, that CO2 was the problem with climate.

- McKintyre found statistical and methodological mistakes in  the Hocky Stick.  This rattled the cage of the American Statistics group, who then became interested, and stimulated debate.  As a consequence, the Statistics used by Alarmist has come under scrutiny.  This illustrates there is NO CONSENSUS on the statistics used in Climate Science.

- Astrophysics groups around the world, who have never bought into the AGW theory, have steadily been comming out with Solar/Ocean coupled models, that are just as justified in science as AGW theory.  This illustrates there is NO CONSENSUS on the effects of Solar in Climate.

- Then we had the ICCC group meet in March with the Manhatten Declaration. Again, showing there is NO CONSENSUS amoung science in general on man made Climate change.

- Now we have desent in the ranks of physics, and it is acknowledged that many physicists do NOT share the view that CO2 is driving Climate.  This has resulted in a proclaimation of such, and the introduction of a DEBATE on the subject, which opens up a forum for all the physicists who do not agree!  Again, this shows there is NO CONSENSUS on the physics of Climate Science.


WHAT THIS ALL ILLUSTRATES .... is that at one time there was a GRAND CONSENSUS ... the position is moving AWAY from that!   The MUTED voices are beginning to be heard.  This is because, the climate is not responding according to theory.  There is no hot spot, the temp is cooling but CO2 is rising.  This is not supposed to be.[/QUOTE]

There is a consensus among the highest levels of scientists associated with climate studies. There will always be people who seek to distinguish themselves by dissent, but they are not as numerous as you claim, but make a lot of noise. What you are doing here is echoing the  cheer leading from the GW denier web sites,  looking at this as a kind of athletic contest between sides, and trying to boost morale.

If you look at the scientific substance of the posts, it is pretty clear that the science on the GW denier side is pretty shallow and thin. The arguments are simplistic and emotional, and easily contradicted by physics. Oceans exhaling CO2, CO2 absorption effect not increasing with concentration, malfunctioning radiosonde equipment cited as proof that climate models are no good, small variations in the sun's output inflated to explain the global temperature increases, CO2 emissions in the past lagging climate change etc.- all of these are easily seen by scientists as specious and incorrect arguments, and it is easy for me to find the rebuttals on the web. I haven't seen any counters from you on these.

The most disturbing thing to me are the conspiracy theories tying conclusions of the scientific community on global warming to presumed ideological bias toward international socialism, or a belief that scientists generally report the science in a certain way based on some expectation of a monetary reward for taking a certain position. There are very few scientists, in my experience, who
behave in that way.

Finally,  there is the ad hominem dismissal of the recognized expert on solar radiation, Judith Lean,  called a green shill. It is pretty sad if you can't do better than that.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2008 - 12:38PM #10
Armwar
Posts: 12,019
Consensus of experts is helpful, but it is the weakest "evidence"...

Gail
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook