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

I learnt my French history from 'Ello Ello.

Naked American man stole my balloon.

Ok, so that's An American Werewolf in London, but it's my favorite line.

Thank you. All of nature needs us who lie on the planet Earth and have no were else to go to to wake up and realize we need to clean up our act. Other then a small space station that needs constant maintenance, we have no other place we can live.

Colonies in space are still in the realm of Science Fiction and for our children and all future generations we need to try to repair the damage already done in the name of process and so we can a "Standard of Living," that doesn't take in account other species, wither animal, plant and other things that live around us.

Once people pave over all area around them to make homes, businesses, roads, parking lots and factories, we can't go back and expect nature to heal our mistakes. So anything we can get to educate and encourage others to think Green, in even small steps is better then continuing in the name of "Process" or "Wealth," while others suffer and die due to our own greedy nature.

Huh? Here's the article I linked in the OP

The *only* mention of "peer review" in the article was this paragraph:



This is not claiming that the paper published in the APS newsletter was peer reviewed. It's not even claiming that any work by Monckton was or is peer reviewed. It is saying that other peer reviewed work has concluded that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low. I'm not going to speculate on the veracity of a side statement in an email quoted somewhere near the bottom of the article in question Joph. As I have stated repeatedly, the point of the article on DailyTech wasn't to support Monckton's paper, but to observe that APS is putting GW skeptics views in their newsletter publication.

Did you not notice the bolded tagline: "Considerable presence" of skeptics, at the top? That's not a quote of Monckton. It's a quote from the editor of the newsletter. The "news" here is that APS is putting dissenting opinions about Global Warming on their newsletter.


Maybe you missed the point, but that's why I started the thread and linked the article. It's amazing to me that you managed to ignore that and instead focused all your attention on Monckton. I don't care about what's in his paper Joph. How many times do I need to explain that to you? It's not about his paper. It's about the fact that APS let him write a paper for their newsletter. That's the news here...



Lol! Case in point. You're obsessing on the wrong part of the article...



I do it because I'm trying to get you to go through the logical steps involved. Cause quite often, when I just present my argument and position you manage to somehow completely miss what I'm talking about. Usually because I assume you bothered to stop and think about the subject instead of just respond by gut reaction.

If you had bothered to read the editors comments, which I've posted at least twice now, you'd see that this is a "new" thing. This is for the July 2008 release of the APS newsletter, and he says that "in this issue we kick off a debate", so I'm assuming this is the first one.

If you'd spent any time attempting to answer the question I just asked, you'd have figured this out. You'd also have read the newsletter and perhaps been a bit more informed about the issue and maybe understood that it really has nothing specifically to do with Monckton's paper.


Here. Since you seem to be too lazy to read, let me quote just the first paragraph of the editors comments. Maybe you'll get it now...:





Sure it does. Last month they didn't have any form of official published debate on this issue. Starting this month, they do. By any definition, that's a "change of position".


Your problem is you keep trying to debate Global Warming here. Hence why you keep referring to Monckton's paper, peer review processes, and APS's official stance on Global Warming. But that's not the point I'm making. I'm observing that skeptics aren't being tossed out into the fringe like they were just a couple years ago. And that's significant. We're finally starting to have a real debate instead of everyone who disagrees being shipped off to the scientific equivalent of Siberia.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2008 12:51pm by gbaji

I do it because I'm trying to get you to go through the logical steps involved. Cause quite often, when I just present my argument and position you manage to somehow completely miss what I'm talking about.

This has never, ever, happened.

Joph's never once, ever, missed what you're talking about. You've wildly changed what you were talking about hundreds of times after having your *** handed to you. Is this what you were referring to?

I never mentioned Monckton's paper, nor it's contents, or it's peer-reviewed status, or lack thereof.

I stated repeatedly that this was a sign that Global Warming isn't as dogmatically accepted as it was just a couple years ago. Follow up statement from APS or not, the Dailytech article, and specifically the editors comments, clearly support what I've been saying all along. Duh.

I stated repeatedly that this was a sign that Global Warming isn't as dogmatically accepted as it was just a couple years ago. Follow up statement from APS or not, the Dailytech article, and specifically the editors comments, clearly support what I've been saying all along. Duh.

Yeah? Here's what you quoted from the article:


The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate changethis is lie you fell for like a sucker and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.this is false The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.This is false The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."They still do


You got taken, yet again, because you didn't bother to do the ten seconds of research required to determine that this "article" was a useless piece of propaganda. A glance at the sidebar linking the author's other articles would have indicated this was probably pretty likely.

So this is your argument: An article written by a blatant partisan with no education regarding climate change containing outright lies supports what you've been saying all along.

I don't think anyone's disagreed that you're an unrivaled sucker who's easily taken. Joph instead merely pointed out the obvious factual inaccuracies in the article at which point you desperately tried to cling to meaningless semantic points for no reason. It has nothing to do with peer review. It just has to do with you being a sucker. Honestly. that's all you establish when you link absolute junk journalism like this. It's not the first time. What I don't understand is this: You have no vested interest in the results of the climate change "debate", right? It's not like you own a company that will be hampered by regulation. I'd wager you don't even invest substantially in companies that would be adversely effected by regulation.

You just don't want people with differing views to be right about something. It's not that you have any evidence they're wrong. You just don't want them to be right.

It's the sort of thing most people outgrow by age 10.

Some are. Since I don't know exactly who the editor of the APS newletter was talking about when he wrote that, I can't say for certain.

Whoever they are, their skepticism was considered to be a viable reason to start a series of debates on the issue within the APS newsletter. Or did you still fail to read the editors comments I linked and quoted? He's the one that quote is from Joph. You can question who they are, but at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. The people in charge of APS's newsletter thought they were relevant enough to begin a debate about the issue. That's kinda all that matters, right?

You're once again missing the point. I'm not proving anything by pointing out the bolded tagline quote except to argue that the thrust of the article was about the APS editor and the decision by APS to run a debate on global warming on their newsletter. You managed (again) to miss this point entirely and think I'm arguing about the skeptics and who they are or even whether they have valid arguments.

That's not it at all. I'm just trying to get you to recognize that the article is about the APS newsletter opening up a debate on the issue. That's "new". How many times do I have to explain this before you get it?



Yes. It is. For an organization that holds the official position that the IPCC consensus on global warming is "incontrovertible" to have their newsletter open up a debate and invite skeptics of that position to submit papers is pretty significant. Sure. It doesn't change that official position. No one's saying it does. But it definitely represents a thawing on the issue.




And you're conflating their forums and their newsletter. The forums are relatively open. Anyone can join and post. The newsletter is managed by hired staff. The content presumably is discussed prior to publication. It's not "informal", unless you're once again on your peer reviewed high horse. It's the damn organizations newsletter Joph. One normally assumes there's some level of connection and responsibility between the organization itself and its newsletter.

Course. After this flap. I expect that editor will be fired and the debate series ended. Can't let anyone think we might even debate the issue of global warming afterall...




So William Gray counts? Just checking? Out of context a bit, but I get tired of you insisting that all skeptics are these fringe folks with no professional training or education in the field.

Dammit, I don't lurk around here regularly enough anymore to tell gbaji he's a clueless moron on a timely basis.

Because you're failing to see the point that both of them aren't the hard sciences part of the APS's publications. And neither represent a place where the APS does their policy shifts.Damn. I could have sworn I remember you gloating as you linked to a petition signed by a whole ******** of people with no trainign & education in climate science.

Oh, wait.. I DID remember correctly!

ZOMG SCIENTISTS SIGNED DIS!!!!! REAL LIVE SCIENTISTS!!!!'Cause his science sucked?

Oh, wait. I guess I was supposed to say "vast scientific conspiracy". Right? Can I get a do-over?

All righty... I'm done. Enough "Nuh uh/Uh huh!" for now. Go ahead and post your closer on this one 'cause I think the studio audience has enough to work with.

Show me any studies that aren't financed by the government that show human global warming to be a reality. They simply don't exist.

There are thousands, sucker. Who told you they didn't exist, sucker?