Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nrg_crisis who wrote (22255)	7/18/2008 3:32:49 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 36917

Why not just post the referenced article and let people come to their own conclusions? aps.org Conclusion Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful. In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

To: nrg_crisis who wrote (22255)	7/18/2008 3:59:12 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 36917

the report was clearly contrary to the long-held position of the APS. Thank you for that clarification. aps.org

To: nrg_crisis who wrote (22255)	7/18/2008 5:28:33 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

As I said there's been a major outbreak of heresy in the American Physical Society: Message 24765664 i>Editor's Comments With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. 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 the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM) ...... aps.org --------------------------------------- the report was clearly contrary to the long-held position of the APS. Thank you for assuring us the APS as an institution hasn't gone over to the heresy. Its merely allowed a debate to begin. Thats bad enough of course. 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. Only one of 39 units is allowing the heresy to be debated. Great! It can probably be contained and stamped out then. Getting a new newsletter editor would be job one, I'm sure. 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 .. Aha! That is proof that any heretical statements contained therein are false! The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: The APS responded to the outbreak of heresy by reaffirming its official orthodox position. Very good. Thats a good start. But you can't have too many reaffirmations of loyalty, fidelity and orthodoxy. Oh, good, here's more reaffirmation: 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. Now lets see if we can belittle the forum where the heresy broke out. The publication in which the cited report appeared is NOT a peer-reviewed journal. It is a 'forum', a discussion, the physicists' equivalent of a message board. Very good. You could have gone a bit further - you could have likened the journal to graffiti scrawled on a bathroom wall, for instance. Monckton is not a .. Ah, the ritual personal attack begins. Good, you called him a crank. Attaway. the overwhelming majority of APS members whom I know personally support the APS position. Thank Gaia for that!

To: nrg_crisis who wrote (22255)	7/18/2008 5:31:10 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 36917

Almost all the AGW bashers here are non-technical individuals. A few are Engineers. See my prior post on Engineers and dubious views. The only reason I've ever been able to link with why well educated Engineers believe nonsense, is that Engineers are well known to be biased towards conservative views, for the same level of education, compared to the general public. Kind of astonishing, but...

To: nrg_crisis who wrote (22255)	7/19/2008 12:02:51 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36917

So let's state this clearly, The opinion or belief of poster nrg_crisis is as follows. The "Consensus of the ASP is contrary to the conclusions based upon the mathematical analysis of Mr Monckton. Based not upon any analysis or refutation of the mathematical analysis of Mr Monckton but upon a show of hands, a perfect political position, not scientific. LOL..... It is nice to see those who are elected to post the political and policy statements of the APS do so not by physical science but rather by a political policy position by a count of hands... LOL... I am investing my time in looking for truth. Do the wanabe who can not really do science do the politics of science organizations where success is about funding and funding is about saying the most politically correct truth. I do wonder has nrg_crisis ever done any independent due diligence on the political opinion of the ASP regarding their political policy on anthropogenic greenhouse gas or read any science based refutation of the mathematical analysis of Mr Monckton. Does nrg_crisis really believe that the hand waving arguments it presents should convince any awake thinking person of the truth of it's position.