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

Skip to comments.

American physicists warned not to debate global warming
The Register ^ | 21 July 2008 | Andrew Orlowski

Posted on 07/21/2008 9:54:26 AM PDT by BufordP

Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?

It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.

"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," he wrote (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm).

American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm) the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity. The believers are represented (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm) by two physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who state that:

"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality."

But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.

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.

Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think.

"The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie," writes (http://numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm) Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. "The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate."

Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes:

"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)?"

Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of "peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on "publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion.

(Whether it's science is not in question - whether it's "good science" or "bad science" is the question. An earlier presentation by Monckton examining questioning climate sensitivity received was examined (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/) by NASA's Gavin Schmidt on the believers' blog, RealClimate.org.)

But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the "state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's paper.

One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes:

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted." [our emphasis]

Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified:

"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture."

In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer (so far so good), but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic system of the Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect (all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting"), but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.

The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass every year, notes Dyson (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494), the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: achillwind; agw; aps; blacklist; censorship; climatechange; environment; globalwarming; globalwarmingscare; indoctrination; junkscience; physicists; politicalcorrectness; politicallycorrect; pseudoscience; starkravingsocialism; thoughtcrime
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 07/21/2008 9:54:29 AM PDT by BufordP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Could use your ping list!


2 posted on 07/21/2008 9:55:40 AM PDT by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

APS can go pound sand.


3 posted on 07/21/2008 9:56:36 AM PDT by DarthVader (Liberal Democrats are the party of EVIL whose time of judgement has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Could use your ping list!


4 posted on 07/21/2008 9:56:57 AM PDT by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

Its Galileo all over again, the flat earthers are in charge!


5 posted on 07/21/2008 9:57:10 AM PDT by redstateconfidential (If you are the smartest person in the room,you are hanging out with the wrong people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

As a former MIT nerd, this will backfire.

Real (”hard”) scientists are often, by nature, contrarians to public opinion and this “warning” will draw their interest and further research.


6 posted on 07/21/2008 9:58:28 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan ("Jesse Jackson was an important figure; paving the way for Osama bin Laden to appear" -- Dan Rather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

So if I disobey will I lose my license to practice Physics?


7 posted on 07/21/2008 10:01:54 AM PDT by WayneS (What the hell is wrong with these people?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

So much for the “free, unfettered search for the truth, wherever that search may take us.”


8 posted on 07/21/2008 10:03:42 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Without the second, the rest are just politicians' BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

I have a Pile it Higher and Deeper from the school of hard knocks , high mileage and sudden stops and agree with you 100% !

Tell me NO and I seek too know !

Stay safe !


9 posted on 07/21/2008 10:04:21 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

I’d say the American Physical Society is protecting the AGWists grant income stream.


10 posted on 07/21/2008 10:06:44 AM PDT by polymuser (Taxpayers voting for Obama are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

We should bring a tax-payers class-action suit against the reckless cynical opportunists responsible for hyping the anthropogenic GW hoax and causing so much mayhem here and around the world.

The main culprits have already been identified:

’UK Watchdog finds [Channel 4 - The Great Global Warming Swindle] documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers.’

One of the scientists who filed the original complaint (Carl Wunsch) is from MIT - an important point in this mix, in light of what one of his MIT collegues (Kerry Emanuel) had to say, which I am copying and pasting below this excerpted preface:

“..Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on __a separate complaint about accuracy__, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator’s broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers. ..

..The IPCC, King and other scientists including __Dr Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology__, complained to the regulator over the way they were represented. ...

..After the broadcast, Wunsch said the programme was “masquerading as a science documentary when it should be regarded as a political polemic” and was “as close to pure propaganda as anything since world war two”.

[[[ My interjection: That’s pretty funny in light of the fact that Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was determined by a UK court to be one-sided ‘extremist’ political propaganda and unfit to be shown to school children without disclaimers and equal time from ‘the other side’ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=8#8 ]]]

Wunsch claimed he had been duped into appearing and his comments had been misleadingly edited.
The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, __but that his views were accurately represented within it__. ..” http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/19/channel4.climatechange

Now here is Kerry Emanuel of MIT (who made these remarks months and months ago):

“.. “The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship. .. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.

“Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.”

“On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...”

“Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.” ~ Kerry Emanuel - MIT http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

*
Is Emanuel’s collegue, Carl Wunsch, one of those “scientists on the left” who was involved in deliberately “exaggerating the science”?

And from what I can determine, the Rev. Houghton may be another one of the scientists (mentioned by Kerry Emanuel above) who was involved in deliberately misleading / manipulating people. He even admits it:

The Reverend Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC said:

“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

He then proceeds to do just that:

” .. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.”
~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html

*
James Hansen of NASA is another:

Hansen has long employed stagecraft http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk2YjVlYTYzZjZkNTRhZWU2NGNkNzcwYTMzMmFlNGQ= for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room.

Why was it so warm?

As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room . . . it was really hot.” June 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=

*
More first-hand admissions:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

*
[Therefore] “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.” ~ Sincerely, Chris Landsea

Expert leaves IPCC 17 January, 2005, Resignation letter http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

*

“The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable” (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)

*
Personally, I think that these men (along with others like Al Gore), bear a large responsibility for the suffering and nightmares they have inflicted on adults and children around the world.

Here is merely the latest fallout, among the many examples I’ve read about, from such reckless behavior:
Climate Change Delusion Driving Boy to Kill Himself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html

Hopefully more mature, cooler heads will prevail so that this madness may end.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=9#9

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2048577/posts?page=13#13

bttt


11 posted on 07/21/2008 10:07:25 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Driving a Phase-2 Operation Chaos Hybrid that burns both gas AND rubber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

Leave Global Warming alone!

12 posted on 07/21/2008 10:08:27 AM PDT by 6SJ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Question: In what Academic Department at MIT or what Science Department anywhere in the US would a scientist speak out if
a woman or minority was hired, given tenure or some award over a clearly more deserving white male.

Answer: Null Set University, The same one you can be critical of the theory of evolution and have it not negatively impact your career.


13 posted on 07/21/2008 10:09:45 AM PDT by Jonah Johansen ("Coming soon to a neighborhood near you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Real (”hard”) scientists are often, by nature, contrarians to public opinion and this “warning” will draw their interest and further research.

My bro-in-law and I are in a constant discussion about 'global warming'. He, like myself, want to see the data, before we make any judgements. BUT, and this is a big but, we both are dedicated to science telling the truth. If the sun, which is the major influence on temerature variations on all the planets(Mars is warming also), is not the primary driver of planetary warmth, we both are going to quit and work at Village Inn, because the world and a lot of ignorant scientists are drinking the kool-aid.

Right now, sunspot activity is non-existient as happens on a cycle with the sun. The effects of the outbursts of solar wind, magnetic particles, and radiation are at their lowest level in decades, not just years, but DECADES. That lack of force alone changes atmospheric conditions relative to temperatures.

Anyone check the 'hole' in the ozone layer? It's almost gone. Low sunspot activity, there is a connection.

14 posted on 07/21/2008 10:09:46 AM PDT by Pistolshot (When you let what you are define who you are, you create divisiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: polymuser

Exactly. Obviously both “scientists” and politicians have billions of dollars riding on convincing the American public to go along with this scam.

They get more strident every day, which indicates how desperate they feel the situation is becoming.


15 posted on 07/21/2008 10:10:34 AM PDT by JennysCool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

APS sees the danger of loss of grants from the libs if they do not acknowledge globull warming!


16 posted on 07/21/2008 10:12:14 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("All gave some, and some gave all!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done ...."

Gravity is caused by alien life forms in other galaxies. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of gravity. This has not been done ....

17 posted on 07/21/2008 10:12:19 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Barack Obama--the first black Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
So if I disobey will I lose my license to practice Physics?

Yes. In fact, by law, you will be required to introduce yourself as a PhD in Peace Studies, sociology, or French Literature. The point is maximal humiliation.

18 posted on 07/21/2008 10:12:40 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WayneS; MeanWestTexan

EMail the APS and have them warn their members not to read this thread.


19 posted on 07/21/2008 10:13:25 AM PDT by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

No, you will be burned at the stake!


20 posted on 07/21/2008 10:15:46 AM PDT by RightWingConspirator (Redefeat Communism by defeating the Obamanation in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BufordP; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

The Great Global Warming Swindle Video

Not Evil Just Wrong (mash here)
Again...Go Figure...


21 posted on 07/21/2008 10:16:41 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 2 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

“A chill wind” blows in the man made global climate change movement.


22 posted on 07/21/2008 10:18:26 AM PDT by weegee (Obama loves America like Bill loves Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
A story posted just one hour ago at The Register doesn't rate "Breaking News"?

http://news.google.com/news?q=Monckton&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n

23 posted on 07/21/2008 10:20:17 AM PDT by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

SILENCE, I KILL YOU!!!

24 posted on 07/21/2008 10:21:31 AM PDT by bmwcyle (If God wanted us to be Socialist, Karl Marx would have been born in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
The doges have spoken.
25 posted on 07/21/2008 10:22:11 AM PDT by isrul (Help make every day, "Disrespect a muzzie day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

I advocate the revival of public horse-whipping for those ‘scientists’ parroting the political line of their financing patrons, whether Gubmint or NGO.

While no one seriously expects much better of the politicians and place-holders, these ‘scientists’ have betrayed the public trust in a profound manner, and deserve condign treatment.


26 posted on 07/21/2008 10:22:15 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

read later


27 posted on 07/21/2008 10:24:50 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
I put very little credibility in any science predictions or findings (past or present). History has shown that science has been wrong more than it has been correct with such predictions. Furthermore, it is hard to believe anything science predicts when the organizations like the one cited in this article are corrupt and scientists are not stepping forward to stop or correct the corruption.
28 posted on 07/21/2008 10:26:05 AM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes

Inquisitions!


29 posted on 07/21/2008 10:26:54 AM PDT by polymuser (Taxpayers voting for Obama are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

Looks like APS stomped on the flaming bag.


30 posted on 07/21/2008 10:27:52 AM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners. No mercy. Fight back or STFU!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP; All

This is Stalinist restriction of free speech.

The Marxist Democrats and the liberal mainstream Marxist media have been lying through their teeth. There is no global warming because the world is cooling rapidly proof: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html . That’s why the evil plotting media has been changing “global warming” to “climate change”.

Climate scientists: it’s time to move on and recognize that humans are a small, very small, factor in climate change, and since the planet is cooling, it’s crazy to worry about putting CO2 into the air because it might warm things up.

“They have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.

Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory also show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

“This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930,” Dr Chapman noted in The Australian recently.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html


31 posted on 07/21/2008 10:31:15 AM PDT by Democrat_media (Socialism will destroy a country economically. why dems & Mccain for Socialism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polymuser

Expect a visit shortly from the Obama Jugend greenshirts and a trip to the hope/change reeducation camp.


32 posted on 07/21/2008 10:32:30 AM PDT by ZeitgeistSurfer ("Peace in our time, baby!" - Neville Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

SILENCE, I KILL YOU!!!

LMAO! I loved that bit, Achmed (spelled A, c, phlem) the Dead Terrorist.


33 posted on 07/21/2008 10:35:38 AM PDT by upier ("Usted no es agradable en America" "Ahora deporte Illegals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

When the global warming hoax is finally exposed, Algore will still have his millions and university scientists will have already spent their taxpayer supported grant money. The only question is what will their next hoax be to transfer wealth and limit individual freedoms.


34 posted on 07/21/2008 10:46:06 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
Who cares about CO2? It's good for plants. Make more CO2.

The primary evidence that CO2 and the greenhouse effect have anything to do with raising global temperature is missing entirely. It isn't there.

No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)

This is a short and easily understandable article showing the plain truth. The hinge pin that links global temperature to the greenhouse effect is missing. It is easily measurable and hundreds of probes have done so.

35 posted on 07/21/2008 10:47:13 AM PDT by TigersEye (Drill or get off the Hill. ... call Nancy Pelosi @ 202 - 225 - 0100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZeitgeistSurfer

Anyone check the ‘hole’ in the ozone layer? It’s almost gone.

I have often wondered about that myself - that used to be the headline story. Has anyone observed how they now call it “climate change” opposed to warming. Makes for use both ways and since when is the weather ever been or will be static?


36 posted on 07/21/2008 10:49:15 AM PDT by Cyclone59 (I'm trying to think, but nothing happens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The only question is what will their next hoax be to transfer wealth and limit individual freedoms.

Already been happening. Long time.

37 posted on 07/21/2008 10:50:23 AM PDT by Lady Jag ( I dreamed I surfed all day in my monthly donor wonder bra - https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: polymuser

“Inquisitions!”

Comfy Chairs!


38 posted on 07/21/2008 10:51:03 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming.

That sounds like a legal debate but it sure as heck isn't science. There is no need to prove any cause of warming, which is dubious now anyway, when you can simply show that the primary evidence for warming by a greenhouse effect doesn't exist. See post #35.

39 posted on 07/21/2008 10:53:13 AM PDT by TigersEye (Drill or get off the Hill. ... call Nancy Pelosi @ 202 - 225 - 0100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BufordP; Oldeconomybuyer

CHILDREN OF THE CORN


40 posted on 07/21/2008 10:54:15 AM PDT by Lady Jag ( I dreamed I surfed all day in my monthly donor wonder bra - https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

We will just have to take physics underground, and be heretics!


41 posted on 07/21/2008 11:05:40 AM PDT by Rick.Donaldson (http://www.transasianaxis.com - Please visit for latest on DPRK/Russia/China/et al.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes

Whatever it takes! I’m with you. Michael Crighton had their number a LOOOONNNGGG time ago. bttt

Results 1 - 10 of about 401,000 for michael crichton speeches
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=michael+crichton+speeches&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

Michael Crichton Speeches

“Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century”
Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, Washington, D.C.
November 6, 2005

“Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate”
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C.
September 28, 2005

“The Impossibility of Prediction”
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
Janaury 25, 2005

“Science Policy in the 21st Century”
Joint Session AEI-Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
January 25, 2005

“Environmentalism as Religion”
Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003

“Aliens Cause Global Warming”
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003

“Why Speculate?”
International Leadership Forum, La Jolla, CA
April 26, 2002

“Ritual Abuse, Hot Air, and Missed Opportunities: Science Views Media”
American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, Anaheim, CA
January 25, 1999

“Mediasaurus: The Decline of Conventional Media”
National Press Club, Washington D.C.
April 7, 1993


42 posted on 07/21/2008 11:06:54 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Driving a Phase-2 Operation Chaos Hybrid that burns both gas AND rubber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
“To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming.”

That is a slick way of preventing people from attacking their analysis and instead requiring them to prove something else which can then easily be attacked because it would be hard to prove.

It is actually absurd and illogical. If this is the logic of science, no wonder they produce mainly junk science. If the reason for global warming is wrong (C02), then one should be able to prove that it is wrong—not have to prove something else is causing it.

43 posted on 07/21/2008 11:21:54 AM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“When the global warming hoax is finally exposed...”

Problem is that it may never be exposed. They will just keep punting it further down the road (the warming will happen in 50 years, etc.).


44 posted on 07/21/2008 11:23:38 AM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

Every “civilian” proponent and opponent of the man-made theories of “global warming” needs to read the book “Longitude” (”The True Story of the Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time”) by Dava Sobel.

It tells the heart wrenching, scientific and historical tale of a true scientist toiling heroically against, and being defeated by, a scientific orthodoxy of his day - the British Royal Society together with its influential patrons in British Royalty and the British Parliament (collectively, in today’s terms, the IPPC and its patrons and contributors of that era).

When one realizes it is often the powerful forces of scientific orthodoxy when pressed to the extreme of censorship and expulsion from their ranks that it is precisely then that they are most likely to be proven wrong, then one must be concerned about the current “global warming” debate, because, although the hero in “Longitude” did eventually succeed against the forces that tried to silence him, that success was not able to be admitted and put to use until after his death.

If that becomes the course civilization meets over the “gobal warming” debate, the error of following the current orthodoxy to its full ends will be supremely, hugely more disastrous to humanity than was the delay in proving correct the hero of “Longitude”.

The Dims are always hypocritically correct - there is politicization of science going on - and as usual, and in the sense of “global warming”, just as in “stem cell research”, they are the purveyors of that politicization.


45 posted on 07/21/2008 11:27:20 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Pope Silent on Climate Change, Global Warming

Global Warming on Google

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

46 posted on 07/21/2008 11:28:12 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! Sign the petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HwyChile

Isn’t it demanding that a negative be proved? It is a sophistic argument that one might expect from a lawyer in a courtroom intended to influence thinking through distraction not build a logical case. Real science doesn’t work that way or we’d still be debating flat earth vs round earth.


47 posted on 07/21/2008 11:30:44 AM PDT by TigersEye (Drill or get off the Hill. ... call Nancy Pelosi @ 202 - 225 - 0100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

But, but, scientists are pure as the driven snow. They are never biased, and never political. They never show hostility to opposing views or reject other ideas out of hand.


48 posted on 07/21/2008 11:34:06 AM PDT by SampleMan (We are a free and industrious people, socialist nannies do not become us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
Sweet analytics, 'tis thou hast ravished me. --Christopher Marlowe, "Dr Faustus"
49 posted on 07/21/2008 11:45:58 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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




Beam me to Planet Gore !

50 posted on 07/21/2008 11:56:51 AM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 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