Must do list
Go read Maribo on coral reefs and follow the links
Dear Anonymous,
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
You can stretch the comment box for more space
The management.
Looks like your friends at the APS are on the verge of changing their minds I would say beginning of ominous sign for AGW theory
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
From the main APS web site:
ReplyDeleteAPS 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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
The unchanged APS position is here.
And if Vincent had any reading comprehension he would have noticed that the editor said nothing about disagreeing with the consensus or changing his mind.
ReplyDeleteI suspect there's an interesting backstory to the appearance of this debate in that venue, probably starting with incessant whining from the denialist head of the New England section of the APS (a far less important post than it sounds like). Then, rather than find a physicist or someone else with at least faint scientific qualifications to do the anti-consensus article, they got the wackaloon Monckton. Notice also how the editor was very careful to say that they would be accepting only *scientific* critiques of the two papers.
Prediction: Because this is an APS publication, however unofficial and informal, the scientists whose papers are misrepresented by Monckton are going to feel compelled to take the opportunity to flame Monckton thoroughly. And when it's over, the editors will say "Hmm, well, guess there really is a consensus."
Look forward to it, Vinnie.
blogspot
ReplyDelete