“Hey C-O-S-M-O-S….oh cosmos, what ya gone’a do now?

“Considerable presence” of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.”
————

‘Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered’
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

“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.”
————

H/T to a comment at,

‘JunkScience Lies: APS Offers Respectful Correction‘
http://www.desmogblog.com/junkscience-lies-aps-offers-respectful-correction

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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Read: APS Climate Change Statement”
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

“Considerable presence” of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”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 global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Does this mean we should…just maybe, build a couple of power plants we need, taking advantage of the cheapest, an one of the most abundant, source of energy we have.
Not to rub it in of course, but…ha, ha, ha, I love it.
Not that conservation and alternate sources of energy are not valuable endeavors, but the AGW/CO2 hysteria is finally coming to a head.
And I thought it would be several more years, silly me.
#
Boxlock
Posted July 17, 2008 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

Oh, and one more thing;
“According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, “in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low.”

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain’s Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.”

Get that, ‘peer reviewed’, that all important aspect of cosmos’s life.
#
Boxlock
Posted July 17, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

Sorry cosmos, but you have ask for and deserve it.

Here is one

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?action=jp2zoomout&imagesize=1200&jp2x=-1&jp2y=-1&jp2Res=0.25&rotation=0&n=19&op=j&bbx1=0&bby1=0&bbx2=94&bby2=94&zoomout.x=11&zoomout.y=10

Last entry. Completed on the next page.

Outright lie. Either a lie or they present ‘facts’ with out anything to back it up. Kinda like you.

I’m not drilling through the rest of that f’ed up website. You have the text of the lies here on this page. You want to say they aren’t lies? Go dig it up.

“ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html – 2k –

Can’t imagine why they would pull this link. Hmmmmm.”
——————–

Notice anything in common between your old broken link, and this one?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
“Access to reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses to those comments.
(offsite link to Harvard College Library) “

WG1 AR4 CommentsIn accordance with IPCC procedures, past practice has been to distribute copies of review comments and corresponding author responses on request after …
ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html – 2k –

Can’t imagine why they would pull this link. Hmmmmm.

The link I provided gave the chapter, page and line of the draft. You will be able to reference them when the link is working.

To state that

“Over the last decade global land-surface sets have been able to increase the number of
stations substantially”

and be corrected by “Joe Some” that in fact

“There has been a substantial reduction in the number of stations since 1980. see T C Peterson and R S Vose 1997 “An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database” Bulletin of the Royal Meteorological Society Vol 78, pages 2837-2849.”

is lying. If it is not lying, then something even worse is true, the ‘peer reviewed’ papers are lies. Or is it that the IPCC has a problem with facts? Transferring those facts to the report?

The second graph is unreadable.

The third graph does not show temp and is only from Hawaii.

Your link doesn’t provide the comments, or I couldn’t find the comments listed.

The proof of the lies is in my previous posts. The lies were spotted by “Joe Shmoe” and corrected.

You had access to the links yesterday. You had access to the chapter, page, and line. Guess you’ll have to wait for the link to come back up. The lies, though, are still on this blog.

BlueJay, Lefty’s boy, Idiot.

http://directblue.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-donation-website-accepts-illegal.html

“Barack Obama’s electronic contribution site (https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/abroadHP — not hyperlinked for obvious reasons) accepts donations from countries like China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia — although someone had the sense to remove North Korea from the list. The donor is only required to click a check-box, which attests they are legally allowed to contribute.

No other presidential candidate allows such an easy channel for illegal campaign contributions. For example, John McCain and Hillary Clinton do not accept donations from abroad without a complete, written documentation packet sent via postal mail.

It would seem to me that Obama’s form is in direct violation of federal law. I think we should demand an accounting of these foreign contributions and his campaign should follow precedent by requiring documentation of legal status for foreign donors.”

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=41&tstamp=200709

You stated yesterday that the temps could not be posted accurately. So are all the readings wrong? It is quite obvious that CO2 took an enormous spike as temperatures dropped. You could argue that they fluctuated, but that still proves the point, CO2 drastically increases and temperatures did not follow.

I am not a scientist, but to the average lay person, it doesn’t look like CO2 drives temperature.

the whole IPCC enterprise is motivated by the theory of global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases.

I’d suggest changing “the foundation” to “a foundation”.
[Dian Seidel]
”
Status:
Accepted. Text has been edited.

Emphasis mine.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

Why doesn’t the IPCC publically admit that it is a politically motivated and targeted organization? They accepted the above statement didn’t they?

Emphisis mine.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

Why does the IPCC feel the need to lie about simple facts?

Well, can’t claim to read it all, all the time, ya know. Besides, look at this:

#
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 16, 2008 at 7:10 am | Permalink

http://tinyurl.com/5hdj5n

The link redirects to “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion,” a blog run by a guy in. . .Tucson, Arizona.

When someone in Kansas catches that before I do, that’s a sign it’s time to tend to the home front. :)

Blessings ALL!!

So mote it be!!

Last thought: WHY is it that when one reads a large bit of content on the Blog, that Franklin is always right, and everybody else is WRONG?? (As Franklin interprets it, of course) LOL

Must be nice on that top branch…. oooops what out for the squirrrrrrrrrreeeeellllllllllll!!!

Please note that I am asking you a question.

Do you, Nathaniel, believe that the agricultural economist Dennis Avery is a credible source re climate science?

If yes, please explain why you believe that — without using personal ad hominems at me.

‘Dennis Avery’
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery

‘Heartland Still Misrepresenting 500 Scientists as “Co-authors” of Denial Paper’
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-still-misrepresenting-500-scientists-as-co-authors-of-denial-paper

Play ball on the same field?

Ok.

What are yours and Cosmos’s credentials related to climate science and what peer revied papers have either of you written on AGW that you would like to present for our review here?
=========================================

Nathan, how can you be so DAMNED DUMB?? I posted an article from Wiki, so all you Global Warming debaters could use a common playing field… I have no interest in that debate… How many times do I have to post on here… I am NO SCIENTIST… I just observe what is written, and watch and see what happens…

Now, do you all think you can at least play on the same playing field (not BALL field) and use the same RULES when you want to talk about Peer Review??

Thank you….

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-716-2/#comment-384899
————

Despite that, you people still can’t get your anti-AGW lies and nonscientific nonsense published in credible climate journals.

You people have to instead publish(sic) in WSJ op-eds, web-only Canadian newspapers, fossil-fuel funded think(sic) tanks, obscure web pages, etc.

It really is rather simple. YOU called on others to present their case. I have asked you to present yours.

Most of the thinking amongst us? Well we don’t operate on “God says so!” Let alone Dad says so.

As you do?

Perhaps you can help your friend, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’, by providing proof, and answering my question here?

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-715-2/#comment-384321

Naaaah… all that Nathaniel can do is loudly proclaim that he “beleives” the hundreds of (non-existent) climate scientists who disagree with AGW.

Nathaniel doesn’t have ANY names of scientists who have actually done ANY science refuting AGW.

But Nathaniel does have a list from the lying agricultural ECONOMIST, Dennis Avery. And from Rush’s buddy, Marc Morano. LOL!

I am not sure how to respond to such random incoherent ramblings.

I don’t think there is much of a reason to it. Nothing I could lay out in writing as if there were some grand decision making process and reason for.

Just a name. What does it matter?