Well darn. Maybe that Global Warming thing isn't true...Follow

I just love how the wheels are turning on Global Warming. But we were all crazy fringe folks for smelling BS when this whole thing appeared...

Nice, if true. Still not a compelling argument against controlling emissions.

Funny how you always claim we're so blind to believe in the research when you so happily leap at any half-baked (and now discredited) article claiming the opposite regardless of its evidence

Got any other lists of a bajillion thousand made up names, nutritionists and auto mechanics you want to share with us? Maybe a blog or a MySpace page?

Elinda posted the disclaimer but, for the record, here's what the crazy fringe folks you're using as your back-up have to say about anthropogenic climate change:Fuckin' fringe nutjobs!

Edited, Jul 18th 2008 6:47pm by Jophiel

Incidentally, let's re-establish now that the "consensus" of anthropogenic climate change refers to the published scientific studies and the opinions of the major scientific bodies who, as an organization, agree with the idea that man is adversely affecting the climate. It is not a statement that every single man, woman, beast & child believes in ACC nor even that there are no people with impressive enough sounding credentials who don't agree. The fact that the APS has invited contradictory views does not discredit the fact that the APS, like all major bodies in the field, agree as an organization that ACC is legitimate.

You'll always have varying views among individuals. I think it's great that the APS is encouraging intelligent and scientific debate on the topic. I don't think that inviting a few people to submit opinion pieces (none of the pieces are reviewed) goes against the wealth of studies and opinions of the world's major research bodies involved in the field.

Physicists, that's nice, but no climatologists? How about geologists? Please tell me at least 1 meteorologist right?



Physicists might be smart cookies, but I wouldn't exactly go to one if I had say, a botany question. But it looks like a physicist is good enough for Gbaji to go to for some knowledge on the climate.

LOL, Gabji's factpwned.

Because I only get one vote.

Gbaji tends to invent science as he goes along. Discussing ACC & ESC research in particular is always a bizarre combination of hilarity and soul-crushing despair.

But then this is a guy who just loves his "data" and "logic" and yet jumps down and down and hoots like a monkey at every piece of shit blog to come down the pipe he thinks proves his point when ten seconds of research will prove it wrong.

I realize this has already been laid to rest, but this was too amusing (to me) to not comment on.

How did the blog Gbaji linked to find out about the death of ACC? Well, via a press release (PDF) from the "Science & Public Policy Institute", naturally. One that curiously refers to Physics & Society as being a "major, peer-reviewed paper".

As previously mentioned, the article in P&S was written by a Lord Monckton, author, journalist and policy wonk (although not a climate scientist by any means). Oh, he also just happens to be the chief policy advisor for the Science & Public Policy Institute.

Nothing like a bit of self promotion, laced with just a little bit of exaggeration, eh?

Monckton, it seems, also doesn't understand the concept of peer-review given that he sent a pouty letter (PDF) to the APS claiming that the editorial comments he received on his paper counted as peer-review despite them being about making the paper clearer to lay-readers rather than a discussion of the science's merits and evidence. Most absurdly of all, Monckton makes a point of ******** that no one paid him to write his article He's apparently unaware that free-access publications (such as the journal Physics & Society) usually require the author to pay page-charges for peer review (if they offer it at all which P&S doesn't) since the journal can't afford to both pay scientists to review the article and publish it for anyone to read.

Edit: and rate-ups for all since someone bombed the thread

Edited, Jul 20th 2008 9:27pm by Jophiel

Meh, we'll probably still be having the same debate ten years from now.

And I, for one, can't wait.

You're misunderstanding his position ambrya. He's saying if you lie to yourself and tell yourself that everything is wonderful you can sleep at night. Seems fairly reasonable, it works even better if you can get others to lie to you and then believe them because then you get to sleep at night, and you can blame them in 10 years.