tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8968386414185855413..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49260202918093841252008-08-06T04:22:00.000-04:002008-08-06T04:22:00.000-04:00The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are...The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om...<BR/><BR/>The same old mantra deserves the same old response.bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42505890946214306482008-08-05T18:49:00.000-04:002008-08-05T18:49:00.000-04:00So everyone's hyping their conclusions to some ext...So everyone's hyping their conclusions to some extent; opinions as facts. What else is new?<BR/><BR/>OTOH stating that organisms have an effect upon their environment is stating the obvious, no?<BR/><BR/>Joe P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42518084061345929432008-08-05T17:47:00.001-04:002008-08-05T17:47:00.001-04:00Is anonymous 9:51am making a Red Dwarf reference? ...Is anonymous 9:51am making a Red Dwarf reference? Yes, I can see the simliarities between Monckton and a certain character...guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2107235717058793772008-08-05T17:47:00.000-04:002008-08-05T17:47:00.000-04:00Is anonymous 9:51am making a Red Dwarf reference? ...Is anonymous 9:51am making a Red Dwarf reference? Yes, I can see the simliarities between Monckton and a certain character...guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84227640597927597812008-08-05T10:27:00.000-04:002008-08-05T10:27:00.000-04:00Dano calls anon's argumentation "argumentum ad qui...Dano calls anon's argumentation "argumentum ad quibbleum". That is: quibbleicious. <BR/><BR/>Son, folk tried your tactic years ago. It was addressed, resoundingly refuted, and put to bed. You are recycling a long-refuted argument. This would be very embarrassing at a party, board meeting, or any face-to-face gathering. <BR/><BR/>HTH.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31471456055051936992008-08-04T21:06:00.000-04:002008-08-04T21:06:00.000-04:00Steve:The incontrovertible refers to "global ...Steve:<BR/><BR/>The incontrovertible refers to "global warming".<BR/><BR/>That seems weaker to me than the IPCC statement that there is a high probability (>90%) that humans have been the cause of most of the recent global warming.<BR/><BR/>The stupid may burn, but I think one has to look askance at some of these statements by "organization councils" because they are meant to represent a broad spectrum of member views and are often written specifically to mean different things to different people.<BR/><BR/>Some may read "the evidence for global warming is incontrovertible" as "the evidence for AGW is incontrovertible", but that's not what it says.<BR/><BR/>As you well know, there are lots of 'skeptics" around who accept that the earth has warmed in the recent past. They just don't accept the IPCC's claims that humans have caused most of it.<BR/><BR/>And as far as the APS statement urging action, they do not say how much.<BR/><BR/>"The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."<BR/><BR/>I'd say nearly everyone is for actions that will reduce emissions. (eg, through efficiency increases.)<BR/><BR/>Again, the disagreement is in the details.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42309540982499939862008-08-03T18:47:00.000-04:002008-08-03T18:47:00.000-04:00Here's the full statement, anon:"Emissions of gree...Here's the full statement, anon:<BR/><BR/>"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.<BR/><BR/>"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.<BR/><BR/>"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."<BR/><BR/>Making allowance for its brevity, exactly how is it weaker? "Incontrovertible" is *stronger* than the IPCC. Note also the policy prescriptions which go beyond the IPCC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17644518824782466142008-08-03T18:38:00.000-04:002008-08-03T18:38:00.000-04:00Eli, IIRC that statement went up near the start of...Eli, IIRC that statement went up near the start of the controversy, at the same time or within a day or two of when the original red-font disclaimer was inserted in the Monckton pdf. The first paragraph may have been pre-existing boilerplate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36849554562448177712008-08-03T17:56:00.000-04:002008-08-03T17:56:00.000-04:00"Souper!""Souper!"David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46867807729019197952008-08-03T13:42:00.000-04:002008-08-03T13:42:00.000-04:00Over at RealClimate, you might review:#16, #20, #2...Over at RealClimate, you might review:<BR/>#16, #20, #26, #37, #68, #223 in<BR/>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray<BR/><BR/>Also see the accurate story:<BR/>http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/07/now-will-you-publish-my-paper-showing.html<BR/><BR/>Putting the pieces together, it is virtually certain that the way this happened was:<BR/><BR/>1) Gerald Marsh, an retired nuclear physicist, APS Fellow and frequent contributor to FPS newsletter, has done a multi-year campaign of contrarian pieces, not in peer-reviewed journals, but in OpEds, letters, etc. RC #68 and #223 enumerate the list of those I could find.<BR/><BR/>2) The previous (April) issue of the FPS newsletter:<BR/><BR/>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200804/index.cfm<BR/><BR/>contained OK pieces by Williams, Wilson, and Makhijani, a well as a favorable review of Joe Romm's book "Hell and High Water". I.e., FPS is *not* a contrarian -dominated newsletter.<BR/><BR/>It did have Gerald Marsh's:<BR/><BR/>"Climate Stability and Policy", which argued that an ice age was of mroe concern, and had a lot of discussions about *climate sensitivity.*<BR/><BR/>[Nuclear physicists sometimes get interested in climate change from the "If we have to cut down on CO2, nuclear power is part of the answer" view. Let's not debate that here, but it's a connection.]<BR/><BR/>3) The FPS editors *clearly* have no particular expertise at climate science.<BR/><BR/>4) The New Scientist story, describes what happened:<BR/><BR/>"The editors put out a request for articles arguing "both sides of the debate." They also asked Gerald Marsh to recommend authors who might contribute a piece arguing against the IPCC.<BR/><BR/>Marsh gave five names, and the editors contacted all five. Monckton was the only one to respond."<BR/><BR/>Hence, the editors got a list of names (I'd love to see that!) from an APS Fellow they knew. I'd speculate that some names were known to them, but some not, and they just assumed they were a bunch of physicists known to Marsh.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't be surprised if Monckton got a "Dear Dr Monckton ... please write for us" email, which must have made his day.<BR/><BR/>5) Ferguson & Monckton got ready to put up notes on SPPI, the same day as FPS publication. APS-NES Editor Larry Gould gave them a supportive quote, which for a while led me to think wrongly that was the connection:<BR/>http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD/<BR/><BR/>6) SO:<BR/>contrarian APS Fellow Marsh, known to editors<BR/><BR/>editors not expert in this turf<BR/><BR/>eager Monckton<BR/><BR/>7) Check out Marsh & Gould.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90627938721298484782008-08-03T12:51:00.000-04:002008-08-03T12:51:00.000-04:00It is dawning on Lord Monckton that this is his ga...It is dawning on Lord Monckton that this is his gazpacho soup moment.<BR/>--cfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71634020745323921182008-08-03T08:57:00.000-04:002008-08-03T08:57:00.000-04:00Thanks Steve. Do you (or anyone) have an idea whe...Thanks Steve. Do you (or anyone) have an idea when that was place on the index page??EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81376269351970156952008-08-03T08:36:00.000-04:002008-08-03T08:36:00.000-04:00I stand corrected about the statement above being ...I stand corrected about the statement above being only part of their full statement on global warming.<BR/><BR/>But unfortunately, even their full statement is hardly an endorsement of the IPCC findings.<BR/><BR/>I think part of the problem is that the APS worded their statement in such a way that it would be palatable to the max number of their members and that made it somewhat "weak" in comparison to the actual scientific consensus) and left it open to use by some of those members in a way that violated the spirit if not the letter of the statement.<BR/><BR/>I'd bet that the editor(s) who printed the Monckton piece were quite aware of the consensus on climate science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39047419376751381962008-08-03T07:13:00.000-04:002008-08-03T07:13:00.000-04:00at anonymous the APS position can be read here : h...at anonymous <BR/><BR/>the APS position can be read here : http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm<BR/><BR/>it clearly states :<BR/><I>The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.</I><BR/><BR/>i guess the problem why this nonsense has been published lies more at the side of one or more editors who apparantly weren't fully aware of the scientific consensus that GW is considered to be proven. Or just like throwing oil on the flames to heat up the debate.juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40939468636050295582008-08-03T01:30:00.000-04:002008-08-03T01:30:00.000-04:00I said, you said, he said, she said, they said.Not...I said, you said, he said, she said, they said.<BR/><BR/>Not only is this particular 'debate' -- and similar 'debates' -- totally confusing, it's also completely useless and inconsequential. Maybe that's what the inactivists want?<BR/><BR/>Why doesn't Monckton just go ahead and sue Al Gore and James Hansen like he threatened to? Once more, I urge everyone to sign <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/the-sue-us-petition/" REL="nofollow">The "Sue Us" Petition</A> to get Monckton et al. to sue Gore and Hansen.bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78092686543104646892008-08-03T00:45:00.000-04:002008-08-03T00:45:00.000-04:00Eli, the P&S Forum Executive Committee's o...Eli, the P&S Forum Executive Committee's own reasonably strong statement has gotten little mention. It's at the top of the July issue index <A HREF="http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm" REL="nofollow">page</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54835133316077929972008-08-03T00:39:00.000-04:002008-08-03T00:39:00.000-04:00It is very dishonest? No. The commenter is an id...It is very dishonest? No. The commenter is an idiot, rather. That quoted bit is just the first sentence of the statement. The stupid, it burns.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80506492024104176062008-08-03T00:04:00.000-04:002008-08-03T00:04:00.000-04:00The American Physical Society reaffirms the follow...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>That says very little.<BR/><BR/>If greenhouse gases led to a 0.00001 deg C change in near surface air temp, that would qualify as a "way that affects the Earth's climate" -- but it would be essentially meaningless.<BR/><BR/>The APS acts as if the reaffirmation of that position is somehow support for the scientific consensus on greenhouse induced climate change when nothing could be further from the truth.<BR/><BR/>In fact, notwithstanding their implication, their re-affirmation is entirely consistent with their printing of the Monckton piece.<BR/><BR/>APS is essentially hiding behind a facade of support for the mainstream scientific position. <BR/><BR/>They want to have it both ways: host a "debate" on the science and at the same time make it appear that they are not really debating the science at all.<BR/><BR/>It is very dishonest on their part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com