Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The American Physical Society Owes Lord Monckton an Immediate Apology
American Thinker ^ | July 19, 2008 | Marc Sheppard

Posted on 07/19/2008 11:49:32 PM PDT by neverdem

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has penned a letter to the President of the American Physical Society demanding that an offensive disclaimer to one of his papers be removed from the APS website or justified to his satisfaction. And he's also expecting a well deserved apology for the horrendous mistreatment the Society has recently subjected him to.

First, the editors of APS newsletter Physics and Society invited Lord Monckton to present them a paper explaining his disagreement with the AGW findings of the IPCC.  And the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher happily accepted the offer, submitting a brilliant, must read article excoriating the UN lapdogs, both for their deliberately obscured methods and their gross exaggerations of green house gas impact on global temperatures.

Then, despite the Society's official position that evidence of mankind's influence on Earth's climate is "incontrovertible," the newsletter's July 2008 edition contained Jeffrey Marque's editor's comments which welcomed the reasoned debate Lord Monckton's paper would "kick off," allowing that:

"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."

And, indeed, when Monckton's piece was published together with a countering IPCC lovefest by David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz, it made for quite the balanced presentation.  In fact, there was even some buzz about the blogosphere that the 50,000 member APS might be "reversing its stance" on climate change.

But a few days later, Monckton's paper was suddenly and inexplicably branded with these scurrilous prefacing words, emphasized in red:

"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."


An outlandish disclaimer, particularly considering that the paper had been reviewed by one of APS's own scientists, and all requested clarifications were duly incorporated by the author. 

And lest there remain any doubt as to the APS position, its homepage prominently included this reassurance to the green masses with similar dispatch:
"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 much for reasoned debate, but just what the hell happened?  Are we expected to believe that the "Council" was somehow unaware of P&S's invitation to Lord Monckton, a well-known "denier" of AGW dogma? Perhaps, but my Bravo Sierra alarm suggests that they were just as likely "convinced" post-publication -- by the same pathetic political forces that taint the science of the IPCC -- that there can be but one "truth" about climate change.

While the Viscount tactfully chose the word "discourteous" in describing the treatment he'd received, far harsher adjectives certainly come to mind.  The crimes against progress feckless scientists the likes of the APS "Council" are guilty of know no ample punishment.  There should be a special place in hell for each and every one of them as penance for the offense of falsely empowering the laughably inane yet widely accepted fantasies of Al Gore alone.

But inviting a man of Monckton's measure to participate in an evenhanded analysis of both sides only to summarily demean the very position they requested of him is beneath the dignity of any true society of science.  And to continue beating the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community" drums when 32,000 scientists officially dissent and no warming measured since 1998 further betrays their corruption.

These are desperate times for the alarmists, and they are resorting to desperate measures.  But I suspect they'll soon regret the attempt to turn Lord to Pawn.

Here's the full text of Monckton's letter, courtesy of Benny Peiser.  And if you haven't already done so, I implore you to read the brilliant article at the heart of this little drama.

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.

By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
Physics and Society

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; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. 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)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,

THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

Posted at 09:16 PM | Email |


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agw; aps; climatechange; globalwarming; lordmonckton; monckton; physics; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Climate Change For Rubes

We'll see who the rubes are. Don't forget Piltdown Man.

1 posted on 07/19/2008 11:49:33 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And here I thought the APS is above politics. Silly me.


2 posted on 07/19/2008 11:57:28 PM PDT by FocusNexus ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Here is the statement from the front page of the APS:

http://www.aps.org/

“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.”

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

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGEEmail | Print
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

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.


3 posted on 07/20/2008 12:00:51 AM PDT by FocusNexus ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

save


4 posted on 07/20/2008 12:01:40 AM PDT by Eagles6 ( Typical White Guy: Christian, Constitutionalist, Heterosexual, Redneck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It is never possible for members of a society to credibly debate the existence of consensus among their members. The existence of debate by definition implies a lack of consensus.


5 posted on 07/20/2008 12:04:41 AM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

List of councillors:

http://www.aps.org/about/governance/executive/councillors.cfm

http://www.aps.org/about/governance/index.cfm


6 posted on 07/20/2008 12:06:36 AM PDT by FocusNexus ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Lets give the APS a word of advice at http://www.aps.org/about/contact/index.cfm


7 posted on 07/20/2008 12:07:06 AM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The only thing I really regret about all of this is that the hordes of anthropogenic globabl warming advocates and political shills, from Al Gore on down, probably won't be alive by the time it becomes perfectly apparent to everybody on Earth that AGW is a crock. The grandest opportunity for Schadenfreude that has ever presented itself will be lost...
8 posted on 07/20/2008 12:19:41 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y2hSj5p9Gg


9 posted on 07/20/2008 12:21:16 AM PDT by divine_moment_of_facts (If there were no Cowards there could be no Bullies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts; neverdem

All I get is a swirling coloured screen.

Monckton’s treatment is truly appalling. If he does get an apology (and I don’t see how that can be avoided since the disclaimer was an outright lie) I hope it gets VERY wide coverage.

I thought that the whole point of science was to discover truth, expand our knowledge and encourage original thought. When did it turn into groupthink?


10 posted on 07/20/2008 1:02:36 AM PDT by Nipfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Oh, I don’t know, I really expect this to run its course in the next few years. The wheels on AGW are coming off pretty fast really.


11 posted on 07/20/2008 2:48:20 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nipfan

When disruption of the gravy train is threatened...


12 posted on 07/20/2008 2:49:36 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Time to turn the table and accuse the global warmists of crimes against humanity.


13 posted on 07/20/2008 4:01:16 AM PDT by sergeantdave (We are entering the Age of the Idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

“Time to turn the table and accuse the global warmists of crimes against humanity.”

And while we are at it, we should convict Rachel Carson posthumously for the deaths of millions of people from malaria after the enviro-nazis got DDT banned because of her hysterical beliefs, as posited in “The Silent Spring.”


14 posted on 07/20/2008 4:10:25 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib; sergeantdave

Both Al Gore and Rachel Carson should be tried for crimes against humanity or genocide...IMO that is the least that should be done. The Enviro Nazi’s need to be laughed at and ridiculed for their idiotcy and criminal results just like the Stalin & Mao democides...100’s of millions murdered by tyrants!


15 posted on 07/20/2008 4:26:46 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

""...the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting...."

16 posted on 07/20/2008 4:33:51 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa

‘The 21st century environmental movement will push more people into early graves than did all of the dictators of the 20th century’
http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com


17 posted on 07/20/2008 4:45:51 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FocusNexus
Apparently this attack, like others, was led by the demented luddite, APS's own, Robert Park.
Park invoked that Monckton is a "Denier", and most importantly,
was not trained as a physicist and threfore had no right to discuss
the 'religion' (**) of physics. (** as Park sees it, he is the 'Pope' and 'Protector' of American science and current funding).


PARK "1. GOOD LORD! GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS VANDALIZE APS.
"...on the denier's side was Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who inherited his father's peerage in 2006.
Lord Monckton is not a scientist, his degree is in journalism and he's a reporter for the Evening Standard, an English tabloid.
Whatever it is that Viscounts do, he may do very well, but he doesn't know squat about physics and his journalism suffers from it.
Worse, somebody fed the media the line that Monckton's rubbish meant the APS had changed its position on warming;
of course it has not. Few media outlets took the story seriously."


18 posted on 07/20/2008 4:49:27 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bump for later


19 posted on 07/20/2008 5:16:24 AM PDT by bcsco (To heck with a third party. We need a second one....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

and the RATS, take another one in the..................HA ha!!!

20 posted on 07/20/2008 5:44:09 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist -CTHULHU/NYARLATHOTEP'08 = Nothing LESS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

That’s exactly the letter Lord Peter Wimsey would have written, had he taken a First in Physics, rather than History, at Oxford. I have not yet looked at the Viscount’s educational background, but I’m about to.


21 posted on 07/20/2008 6:00:26 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Classics at Cambridge, followed by journalism at Univeristy of Cardiff. Interesting family - his grandfather was one of Edward the VIII’s advisors during the abdication.


22 posted on 07/20/2008 6:08:17 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; TenthAmendmentChampion; Horusra; CygnusXI; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

23 posted on 07/20/2008 6:21:28 AM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I simply don’t believe this. Scientists never engage in politically-motivated slugfests. They always pursue the absolute, verifiable Truth, through repeated experimental testing of hypotheses and rigorously honest evaluation of empirical data. When a scientist makes a pronouncement, we know that it owes nothing to the fashions of the time, to his political or philosophical beliefs, or to the source of his research grant.


24 posted on 07/20/2008 6:32:33 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nina0113

I love this man’s sentence structure ... so few can use multiple semicolons correctly. Is he cute? Is he married?


25 posted on 07/20/2008 6:35:36 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Is he married?

Yes he is, and YOU are too, as am I. But damn! can he write or what?

There's probably something wrong with us if we think well-written paragraphs are hot.

26 posted on 07/20/2008 7:04:00 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
There's probably something wrong with us if we think well-written paragraphs are hot.

Excellent grammar is a sign of genetic superiority :-).

27 posted on 07/20/2008 7:45:22 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
Black Marks for the Red Cross (Is this a racist title?)

Problems Persist With Red Cross Blood Services

Asia's Deadly Counterfeit Drugs

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

28 posted on 07/20/2008 9:07:51 AM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; gruffwolf; ...

FReepmail me to get on or off


Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)

Ping me if you find one I've missed.



29 posted on 07/20/2008 9:59:26 AM PDT by xcamel (Being on the wrong track means the unintended consequences express train doesnt kill you going by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

ping


30 posted on 07/20/2008 10:00:50 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for posting this demand by Monckton.

I’m glad he is getting tough and active about this.

His paper a tremendous refutation of the IPCC. I am amazed that the APS is getting themselves so politically involved in this issue. They have clearly strayed outside of their mandate to report hard science. This issue has caused this physicist to lose respect for the organization. It is going to take a long time for me to recover that respect.


31 posted on 07/20/2008 10:10:12 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nipfan

It’s a radio recording, so there is no visual component other than MS media player “video noise”.


32 posted on 07/20/2008 10:32:10 AM PDT by Don W (To write with a broken pencil is pointless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; nina0113
There's probably something wrong with us if we think well-written paragraphs are hot.

Excellent grammar is a sign of genetic superiority :-).

You two are just suckers for well-hung punctuation... /gd&r*

(*grinnin', duckin' & runnin')

33 posted on 07/20/2008 10:51:03 AM PDT by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
There's probably something wrong with us if we think well-written paragraphs are hot.

No, because a well-written paragraph is like an intelligent, beautiful woman of high moral quality: both are exceedingly rare and show everything else up for the dross that it is. Monckton's writing makes Algore's bloviating look like one of the John Kerry in drag pictures from 2004.
34 posted on 07/20/2008 10:55:35 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tarheelswamprat

It’s all in how the commas are placed.


35 posted on 07/20/2008 12:31:52 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nina0113

Lord Monckton is Catholic, and he seems like a lot of fun. However, based on the one picture I could find of him (on a Czech blog), he is not cute, even for a 56-year-old Britisher. On the other hand, he would probably say the same about me based on my pictures available online :-).


36 posted on 07/20/2008 12:50:49 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

If you google-image him, you get a lot more. He looks a bit like Rowan Atkinson, who’s attractive without being particularly handsome. The humor and intelligence in the eyes are big selling points.


37 posted on 07/20/2008 2:08:03 PM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nina0113

I must have used the wrong search. On a second try, I got more pictures. Quirky, and probably appealing in real life, in a way ... but not cute, exactly.


38 posted on 07/20/2008 2:11:13 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa
Both Al Gore and Rachel Carson should be tried for crimes against humanity or genocide...IMO that is the least that should be done. The Enviro Nazi’s need to be laughed at and ridiculed for their idiotcy and criminal results just like the Stalin & Mao democides...100’s of millions murdered by tyrants!

Beyond the difficulty imposed by the fact that Rachael Carson is dead, I doubt that a fair jury could convict either of them. One essential principle of justice is that a person cannot justly be convicted of any crime beyond the level of a civil infraction if one could not reasonably have known the action was unlawful. For what particular actions should Al Gore have been convicted? Bear in mind that if a substantial portion of the population would believe an action to be legal, it would be hard to prove that Al Gore could not reasonably have believed it so.

39 posted on 07/20/2008 3:27:08 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There must be a pony in here somewhere.

AGW debates by non-scientists quickly degenerate into "Your beliefs suck!", "No, your beliefs suck!" Not informative. AGW debates by scientists degenerate into "My equations are better than your equations," but those equations are informative only to the few people with the background, time, intelligence, energy, and interest to evaluate them.

I dislike the smug AGW true believers and their anti-capitalist solutions, but I still want to know if AGW is occurring, and if it poses a significant threat to humanity. If the answer to both questions is yes, then I want to know what solutions are most practical.

Monckton has repeatedly offered to debate Algore, but I bet I would learn more by watching him debate Andrew Dessler. Algore is an idiot, Dessler is not, and at this point I don't know what to make of Monckton.

40 posted on 07/20/2008 3:35:17 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChad
I dislike the smug AGW true believers and their anti-capitalist solutions, but I still want to know if AGW is occurring, and if it poses a significant threat to humanity. If the answer to both questions is yes, then I want to know what solutions are most practical.

A. if AGW is occurring--the amount of warming that could possibly be due to the incredibly tiny amount of man-processed CO2 is swamped out by the noise of the system and the slight warming starting in the late 1800's that stopped in 1998 started long before man-processed CO2 formed a significant portion of an insignificantly small fraction of total greenhouse gases.

B. if it poses a significant threat to humanity--No one has ever shown that temperature increases of several degrees C can pose any significant danger to humans. Such temperature increases have occurred in the past without any contribution by humans and things were fine. No ice caps melted away and no ice sheets slid into the sea. The warming periods were marked by more, rather than less, clement weather, longer growing seasons and at higher latitudes. The real danger is in a drop in global mean temperature of several degrees C with the resultant reduction in arable land and shortened growing seasons and drier climates.
41 posted on 07/20/2008 3:47:26 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TChad
I dislike the smug AGW true believers and their anti-capitalist solutions, but I still want to know if AGW is occurring, and if it poses a significant threat to humanity. If the answer to both questions is yes, then I want to know what solutions are most practical.

The only way meaningful research can be conducted is if AGW 1.0 thoroughly denounced as a hoax. Otherwise, politics will sabotage any efforts at finding the truth.

42 posted on 07/20/2008 3:48:18 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TChad
I still want to know if AGW is occurring, and if it poses a significant threat to humanity.

From whom do you think you could reasonably expect to learn this information, with any degree of reliability? Stargate Command? NUMA? The UN? (But excuse me, I fall into parody with that last ...)

The current "scientific" fiasco is the best available to humanity. Under the circumstances, the only reasonable assumption is that "solutions that are most practical" will be produced by an unfettered free market of individuals who would like themselves and their assets to survive any potential environmental outcome.

43 posted on 07/20/2008 3:59:40 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; TChad
The current "scientific" fiasco is the best available to humanity.

Actually, no. The best available to humanity is found in the scientific literature, not in the politically-motivated way some folks are spinning a very few of the studies to support an otherwise untenable hypothesis. Some of this "best available" can be found HERE at CO2Science.org.
44 posted on 07/20/2008 4:04:44 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
‘Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.'

Notice a key word missing here. They say that humans are affecting the Earth's climate. They do not say humans are SIGNIFICANTLY affecting the Earth's climate.

The whole thrust of Monckton's article is not that there is no effect, it's that they are grossly overestimating the effect

45 posted on 07/20/2008 4:13:06 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Thank you very much for offering better information.


46 posted on 07/20/2008 4:14:27 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
From whom do you think you could reasonably expect to learn this information, with any degree of reliability?

If I spent about a year digging into the science, I might be able to satisfy my own curiosity about AGW. That will not happen. At this point I don't trust those on either side of the debate to be honest and thorough, and I am fed up with gratuitous assertions.

So in answer to your question, I don't really expect to find that pony.

47 posted on 07/20/2008 4:46:59 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TChad

Life is full of missing ponies, and we’re all gonna die anyway, eventually. Have a Guinness!


48 posted on 07/20/2008 5:53:13 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
That’s exactly the letter Lord Peter Wimsey would have written, had he taken a First in Physics, rather than History, at Oxford. I have not yet looked at the Viscount’s educational background, but I’m about to.

I don't know -- it strikes me more of Pickled Gherkins (the Visount Gerald St. George, his nephew).

And where is Harriet Vane in all of this?

Obligatory Physics Reference (from Gaudy Night):

"Who mentioned Planck's constant a little time ago?"

"I did, and I'm sorry for it. I call it a revolting little object."

Cheers!

49 posted on 07/20/2008 6:01:30 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
What, are you channeling [various now-banned contributors to crevo threads] now?

Full Disclosure: That's what scientists *ought* to do; but too often, the 'error checking' feature of science comes not from an abstract devotion to truth, but a devotion to intellectual pride -- "I'm right and *you* were wrong."

Cheers!

50 posted on 07/20/2008 6:06:28 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson