Too Little, Too late.
The EPA, probably in anticipation of a AGW president regardless which one wins, is about to go nuts on what is regulated/taxed. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
The article you linked to has this update: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. The only thing this changes in your post is the statement "representing nearly 50,000 physicists". The AGW dissenters are not 50,000 strong. The article does not make it clear how large the Physics and Society Forum is.
I just wanted to pre-empt others from saying that this update invalidates your argument. It doesn’t, it just slightly lowers the credibility of the AGW dissenters. |
| |
Written By:
Rory Daulton
URL:
http://www.none.com
|
It doesn’t, it just slightly lowers the credibility of the AGW dissenters. I’d suggest it merely lowers their numbers, not necessarily their credibility. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
|
You are right, of course, McQ. I did not state it as clearly as I should have. |
| |
Written By:
Rory Daulton
URL:
http://www.none.com
|
Mr. Evan’s piece in The Australian makes this excellent point. "The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary." If the left wants to shut down our economy, they should present and defend their case. Al Gore wants us to abandon fossil fuels in ten years! The only arguments I’ve seen pushed forward are computer models that do not match the empirical data.
If AGW supporters cannot or will not debate the issue, they should admit that their underlying premise is invalid. |
| |
Written By:
arch
URL:
http://
|
Wonder if Al Gore would show up if he did? My guess. |
| |
Written By:
meh
URL:
http://
|
|
But Al Gore isn’t a physicist, he is merely a fool. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
The geocentric AGW view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle Al Gore, and the controversy engendered by Galileo’s Monckton’s presentation of heliocentrism climate sensitivity as proven fact resulted in the Catholic IPCC Church’s prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of IPCC Scripture. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
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. Deniers denied ? |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
But Al Gore isn’t a physicist, he is merely a fool opportunist selling cures for a non-existant disease. ’fool’ implies some form of misguided sincere intention. I think he sees an issue to work to his personal benefit. Accuracy of it all means very little to him, otherwise he would be less of a hypocrit or at least be ashamed of his hypocritical lifestyle. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
|
What I want to know is, when we finally get a "consensus" that there is no global warming going on, can we institute a class action suit against these a-holes for trying to scare us to death? |
| |
Written By:
kyleN
URL:
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
|
it’s my understanding from the editor’s comments that they decided to open some pages of their journal up for the debate. 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 Monckton is a politician and business consultant and I’m not sure if he’s actually a member of APS. Additionally his article is not peer reviewed. The two physicists, Obispo and Hafemeister, presented their rebuttal here. |
| |
Written By:
ChrisB
URL:
http://
|
Given the history and handwaving announcements of the eco-fools, once it generally accepted that C02, cow methane, automobiles, factories and all the rest have NOT contributed to global warming, then all the usual suspects will insist that the money already spent to combat global warming was what really saved the world and we should continue to waste, er um invest more money to continue to be good stewards of the earth.
We used to lock up our crazies to protect society, now we let them run free and pontificate about global warming. |
| |
Written By:
tim stevens
URL:
http://
|
Its hard to marshal forces against AGW.
I can see where Scientists don’t want to get in the middle of the debate if its now how they make their paycheck. Nice way to limit future career options and bring down trouble on your current situation if you tick off the Inquisition.
However if you make your paycheck by affirming AGW you’re a saint. If you make your paycheck by refuting AGW, you’re on the take.
It isn’t until that double standard is broken and its safe for scientists to oppose AGW without nuking their careers/funding, will it be strongly opposed. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|