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...
Well, obviously Mr. Marque triggered a crapstorm in the blogosphere, because this morning the APS felt it necessary to issue a clarification:
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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
Now, a couple of things. As noted, the original text was a post to a forum, hardly an official declaration by the APC. Secondly, the statement itself is so heavily qualified (very probably likely to be primarily responsible) as to be harmless, if perhaps also meaningless. So what I think got Mr. Marquette into trouble was his reference to Christopher Monckton as being a member of the scientific community who disagrees with the AGW consen
sus. Well, Lord Monckton is definitely not a scientist. He's a one time advisor to Margaret Thatcher, a well known low-caliber denialist (meaning he's particularly hard to take seriously), and an all-purpose wing-nut (Google "Monckton & AIDS", or read through last link). Furthermore, he looks like this.Mr. Marquette seems to have got rooked by a nutter, in other words.
Here's Monckton's paper, by the way. The correct term for something like this is "baffling them with bullshit".
Furthermore, he looks like this.
ReplyDeleteHeh.
...oh, I know, I shouldn't laugh. But a few more hours in purgatory won't really matter at this point.
The AGW zealots are busy shitting their pants at the thought of a debate by real scientists in a real scientific forum. Not some preordained UN sham. Get used to it boys.
ReplyDeleteSilly. If his arguments have merit, he should be able to get them published in a peer-reviewed journal.
ReplyDeleteThe AGW zealots are busy shitting their pants at the thought of a debate by real scientists in a real scientific forum. Not some preordained UN sham. Get used to it boys
ReplyDeleteYou've already been outed as a shameless liar. Go away.
I'm all for a debate - a fair debate. Figure out how many scientists are on each side and then select a representative balance of opinions. If it's 2500-1, then we need to know that. To give pro and con equal representation where we know the consensus is so strong is to distort the very relevance of the debate. It affords the deniers a completely undeserved equivalence.
ReplyDeleteFigure out how many scientists are on each side and then select a representative balance of opinions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, weed out all the scientists who are not capable, or are unwilling, to present the science and communicate it in a way that other reasonably educated people should be expected to understand.
The next person who uses "albedo" around me will get a thorough talking to. ;)
"Go away."
ReplyDeleteGo change your pants dimwit.
You can tell an awful lot about a person who makes repeated scatalogical references. Sillydion appears to have a real poop fetish.
ReplyDeleteGo change your pants dimwit.
ReplyDeleteHow long will these appalling assaults upon my personal dignity be allowed to continue?
Conservatives; nothing but trailer trash. Good thing I can out-trash trash with one arm tied behind my back. Their hillbilly mojo has no effect on me.
ReplyDeleteConservatives; nothing but trailer trash. Good thing I can out-trash trash with one arm tied behind my back. Their hillbilly mojo has no effect on me.
You should wear a cape.
No, the correct term for you would be 'a sciency paper, full of words I don't understand'.
ReplyDeleteTo the rest of us, it's pretty easy reading.
No, the correct term for you would be 'a sciency paper, full of words I don't understand'.
ReplyDeleteTo the rest of us, it's pretty easy reading.
Can anyone explain what this bit of pre-verbal/post-literate excreta means?
1) The APS never recanted, because the *APS* had not changed its position about AGW.
ReplyDelete2) Here is the entire
July issue of Physics and Society.
and April issue.
In the latter, Gerard Marsh has an article that worries about forthcoming ice age...
3) I suspect the leadership of APS are considering the role of that Forum...
Oh I know John, I'm just being sensationalist.
ReplyDeleteAnd I also suspect APS is wondering about their forums at this point. There might be another post or two out there somewhere about how the forum was "infiltrated".