PDA

View Full Version : American Physicists Society Reverses Stance on GLobal Warming




angelatc
07-18-2008, 08:29 AM
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm


he 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."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"


More good stuff at the link. However, the APS homepage carries this important disclaimer:
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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

No matter what that means though, it seems to mean the the consensus does not exist.

Dr.3D
07-18-2008, 08:38 AM
Hummmm.... a very strange thing it is when they publish an article and then say they don't agree with it. Yet the article says they do. :confused:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-18-2008, 11:14 AM
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm



More good stuff at the link. However, the APS homepage carries this important disclaimer:

No matter what that means though, it seems to mean the the consensus does not exist.

Firstly, the phrase "are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming" has linguistic problems. The words "probably" and "likely" have similar meaning while their combined meanings together make it impossible to narrow the focus of the conclusion to that of being "primarily responsible."

The best a conclusion can be is "primarily" which is close to being that of "theoretical" while it has to be backed with "solid," "irrefutable," and "concrete" evidence. Concluding with "primarily responsible" with evidence that is "probably," and "likely" isn't science at all but literature.

The best evidence is that which is "observable" because it is considered direct in that it utilizes the 5 senses while Descartes himself didn't even believe we should trust this type of a sensual observation. In comparison, "theoretical" indirect evidence exists somewhere in a fiction between that of the realities of "realism" and that of "antirealism."

Secondly, the theory of non holistic science reduces first through the cognitive sciences beginning with the field of the (living) biosphere, to reduce to that of field of sociology, to reduce to that of the field of psychology before it reduces to that of the natural science of biology -- if unification between the cognitive and natural sciences is even possible.

Science then reduces to the field of chemistry from that of the field of biology, and, finally, from biology it reduces to the field of physics where its conclusions are mainly expressed in mathematical conclusions while they are based on deep, deep theoretical evidence.

The question of global warming is the responsibility of those scientists who work in either the field of the cognitive science of the biosphere and perhaps for those who work in the natural sciences of the fields of biology and chemistry meaning that the physicists are delving into a field of study which isn't even their business. So, who cares what the physicists think on the matter of global warming?

qaxn
07-18-2008, 11:27 AM
Secondly, the theory of non holistic science reduces first through the cognitive sciences beginning with the field of the (living) biosphere, to reduce to that of field of sociology, to reduce to that of the field of psychology before it reduces to that of the natural science of biology -- if unification between the cognitive and natural sciences is even possible.

Science then reduces to the field of chemistry from that of the field of biology, and, finally, from biology it reduces to the field of physics where its conclusions are mainly expressed in mathematical conclusions while they are based on deep, deep theoretical evidence.

The question of global warming is the responsibility of those scientists who work in either the field of the cognitive science of the biosphere and perhaps for those who work in the natural sciences of the fields of biology and chemistry meaning that the physicists are delving into a field of study which isn't even their business. So, who cares what the physicists think on the matter of global warming?

i agree with your conclusion, but please tell me more about your reductionist cosmology of the sciences.

Kade
07-18-2008, 11:31 AM
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm



More good stuff at the link. However, the APS homepage carries this important disclaimer:

No matter what that means though, it seems to mean the the consensus does not exist.

You know what is really funny about this?

The number of whack websites hosting it and proclaiming it as awesome... you know why?

They didn't care to listen to what this group said before....

Hypocrisy.

Then of course, this:

Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

In other words, it's a few whackjobs in the organization... the 50,000+ scientists still have brain cells.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 11:42 AM
Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

In other words, it's a few whackjobs in the organization... the 50,000+ scientists still have brain cells.

See what's wrong with that statement yet? :p

Truth Warrior
07-18-2008, 12:03 PM
A bogus scam is a bogus scam is a bogus scam. :p

Algore's involved, how much more do you really NEED to know? :rolleyes:

Knightskye
07-18-2008, 12:06 PM
I hope they succeed. It might help Barr, since he thinks global warming is a hoax.

muh_roads
07-18-2008, 12:10 PM
You know what is really funny about this?

The number of whack websites hosting it and proclaiming it as awesome... you know why?

They didn't care to listen to what this group said before....

Hypocrisy.

Then of course, this:

Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

In other words, it's a few whackjobs in the organization... the 50,000+ scientists still have brain cells.

Bush, McCain & most neocons also believe in climate change. I think questioning man-made global warming is the patriotic thing to do.

You must love globalism Kade.

Kade
07-18-2008, 12:17 PM
You must love globalism Kade.

I love science.

I question most every other example of vacuous nonsense babbled on here, and you point out an issue related to hard science as somehow relevant in any way to the corrupt leaders who wish to exploit it?

I will not sacrifice principle because you happen to be clueless.

Truth Warrior
07-18-2008, 12:20 PM
But NOT "global cooling" science. :rolleyes:

angelatc
07-18-2008, 12:29 PM
I love science.

I question most every other example of vacuous nonsense babbled on here, and you point out an issue related to hard science as somehow relevant in any way to the corrupt leaders who wish to exploit it?

I will not sacrifice principle because you happen to be clueless.

"Vacuous nonsense" from scientists indicates that consensus doesn't exist.

Since you're apparently well read in this topic, how do "they" explain that chart that shows the CO2 levels trail warming, instead of leading it? And where does that "the earth has been cooling since 1998" statement come from?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-18-2008, 12:31 PM
i agree with your conclusion, but please tell me more about your reductionist cosmology of the sciences.

Well, I'm a metaphysician myself not because it is the best science but because the greatest government in the world used it to establish itself. Plus the modern theoretical scientists have all ran off to live in their own international community where they sit with their long hair and shaggy beards at their own high table.

My cosmology is that science will discover a metaphysical solution. This metaphysical solution will not only replace theoretical science but will replace the scientific reasoning of logic likewise. In other words, as chemistry reduces to physics, physics will reduce to this one metaphysical solution thus bumping the field of physics up a notch. E = MC^2 has failed to become that metaphysical solution but is a good example of how a metaphysical solution could be developed to establish a kind of unifying field theory.

Think of the game of tic tac toe. Within the context of the game, one doesn't need to use logic to win or tie when playing it but follow a few metaphysical rules. If no other context exsists outside of the game making the game reality itself, then the rules themselves replace the logical process.

electronicmaji
07-18-2008, 12:34 PM
"Vacuous nonsense" from scientists indicates that consensus doesn't exist.

Since you're apparently well read in this topic, how do "they" explain that chart that shows the CO2 levels trail warming, instead of leading it? And where does that "the earth has been cooling since 1998" statement come from?

We're really not scientists to discuss this; these arguements are about as valid as arguements against evolution. Complete and utter bullshit. There are thousands; of millions of variables to consider when calculating whether or not Global Warming is man made. The data that needs to be referred too is far too large to even fit on this forums servers.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 12:36 PM
We're really not scientists to discuss this; these arguements are about as valid as arguements against evolution. Complete and utter bullshit. There are thousands; of millions of variables to consider when calculating whether or not Global Warming is man made. The data that needs to be referred too is far too large to even fit on this forums servers.

**arguments.

Kade
07-18-2008, 12:40 PM
"Vacuous nonsense" from scientists indicates that consensus doesn't exist.

Since you're apparently well read in this topic, how do "they" explain that chart that shows the CO2 levels trail warming, instead of leading it? And where does that "the earth has been cooling since 1998" statement come from?

The decade from 1998-2007 was the warmest on record.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/484353/1998_2007_warmest_decade_on_record.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22922992-2,00.html

Can you please show me where you got data showing you anything else?

Kade
07-18-2008, 12:40 PM
**arguments.

Hey Yongrel Jr., add something useful please.

klamath
07-18-2008, 12:41 PM
Firstly, the phrase "are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming" has linguistic problems. The words "probably" and "likely" have similar meaning while their combined meanings together make it impossible to narrow the focus of the conclusion to that of being "primarily responsible."

The best a conclusion can be is "primarily" which is close to being that of "theoretical" while it has to be backed with "solid," "irrefutable," and "concrete" evidence. Concluding with "primarily responsible" with evidence that is "probably," and "likely" isn't science at all but literature.

The best evidence is that which is "observable" because it is considered direct in that it utilizes the 5 senses while Descartes himself didn't even believe we should trust this type of a sensual observation. In comparison, "theoretical" indirect evidence exists somewhere in a fiction between that of the realities of "realism" and that of "antirealism."

Secondly, the theory of non holistic science reduces first through the cognitive sciences beginning with the field of the (living) biosphere, to reduce to that of field of sociology, to reduce to that of the field of psychology before it reduces to that of the natural science of biology -- if unification between the cognitive and natural sciences is even possible.

Science then reduces to the field of chemistry from that of the field of biology, and, finally, from biology it reduces to the field of physics where its conclusions are mainly expressed in mathematical conclusions while they are based on deep, deep theoretical evidence.

The question of global warming is the responsibility of those scientists who work in either the field of the cognitive science of the biosphere and perhaps for those who work in the natural sciences of the fields of biology and chemistry meaning that the physicists are delving into a field of study which isn't even their business. So, who cares what the physicists think on the matter of global warming?

Since the debate is about anthopological global warming I would say that Physicists which include astrophysicists which includes the study of the nuclear fire we call the sun which by the way is the source directly or indirectly of all heat energy on earth, it might be necessary to have their input in the debate.

Kade
07-18-2008, 12:42 PM
Since the debate is about anthopological global warming I would say that Physicists which include astrophysicists which includes the study of the nuclear fire we call the sun which by the way is the source directly or indirectly of all heat energy on earth, it might be necessary to have their input in the debate.

What?

klamath
07-18-2008, 12:45 PM
What?

You like that:D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-18-2008, 01:03 PM
Since the debate is about anthopological global warming I would say that Physicists which include astrophysicists which includes the study of the nuclear fire we call the sun which by the way is the source directly or indirectly of all heat energy on earth, it might be necessary to have their input in the debate.

Okay. If reduction is truly viable in science, the question of evolution should one day reduce down to physics. But the responsible physicists know better to comment until that day comes. Until it does comes, the question of evolution should remain in biology or, more precise, in evolutionary biology.
Likewise, the conclusions of global warming should remain in those fields of science that are best suited to deal with it as a theory.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-18-2008, 01:21 PM
Since the debate is about anthopological global warming I would say that Physicists which include astrophysicists which includes the study of the nuclear fire we call the sun which by the way is the source directly or indirectly of all heat energy on earth, it might be necessary to have their input in the debate.

I forgot to point out a little lesson in mechanics. One should discount all the "which" phrases to coordinate the sentence properly.


Since the debate is about anthopological global warming, I would say that physicists it might be necessary to have their input in the debate.

So, a possible revision might be to write as follows: Since the debate is about anthropological global warming, I would say when considering physicists, which includes astrophysicists, and the study of the nuclear fire we call the sun, which by the way is the souce directly or indirectly responsible for all heat energy on the earth, that it might be necessary to have their input in the debate.

:)Remember that reading helps writing while writing helps reading. After we learn to read and write better, reading and writing about philosophy will help us read and write even better!

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
07-18-2008, 02:04 PM
Not warming.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MIDTROP.JPG

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
07-18-2008, 02:05 PM
rally in a bear market?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Warm_periods.jpg

Kade
07-18-2008, 02:12 PM
rally in a bear market?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Warm_periods.jpg

Warming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
07-18-2008, 02:25 PM
Warming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

All that chart is showing you is heat generation over time by a developing city, as a result of radiation absorbing asphalt and heat producing buildings.

Measuring the temperature in a well-mixed fluid above the surface of the earth like the troposphere would be a better indicator of temperature than the average of cities where the overnight lows are 5-10 degrees warmer than 50 years ago.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22globeice.jpg

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/June22NHIce.jpg

Kade
07-18-2008, 02:28 PM
...


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6089

klamath
07-18-2008, 05:25 PM
I forgot to point out a little lesson in mechanics. One should discount all the "which" phrases to coordinate the sentence properly.



So, a possible revision might be to write as follows: Since the debate is about anthropological global warming, I would say when considering physicists, which includes astrophysicists, and the study of the nuclear fire we call the sun, which by the way is the souce directly or indirectly responsible for all heat energy on the earth, that it might be necessary to have their input in the debate.

:)Remember that reading helps writing while writing helps reading. After we learn to read and write better, reading and writing about philosophy will help us read and write even better!
I'll conceed the point on sentence structure which by the way I wrote that way on purpose.:D
Since Astrophysicists study the heat source of earth, their input is necessary.:D

mediahasyou
07-18-2008, 08:59 PM
It's hard not to wake up to the sound of dubunking myths.

muh_roads
07-19-2008, 02:45 AM
I love science.

Then you should enjoy reading this too.
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

FindLiberty
07-19-2008, 04:44 AM
Thoses graphs clearly indicate another idiot wave and market crash, like the one that wiped out Sinclare millions of years ago!

Roxi
07-19-2008, 04:51 AM
amy WHERE are you for this discussion! we need a real scientist :D


what i find funny about this, is that there is a small group of people saying one thing that goes "against the views of the establishment" (the establishment being the APS as a whole)

and some of you are willing to believe that this small group are a couple of "whackjobs"


hmmm.... that sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?

Truth Warrior
07-19-2008, 06:03 AM
Results 1 - 50 of 440 English pages from lewrockwell.com for global warming. (0.15 seconds)
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.co m%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3 A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=global+warming&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com

Aratus
07-19-2008, 08:30 AM
the photons streaming from the sun if in a flux would vary photosynthesis. a longterm pattern with an upswing could be construed as warming. if the sun basically spews out too many photons, we all bake. less photons, less photosynthesis, plants die. we are at a middle range. the solar furnace seems fairly constant. up and down swings might be the 'engine' that drives climate change. there is a NOVA special about supervolcanos. we are not the only CO2 source and/or dust particle source of pollution. an intense pattern of vulcanization spews forth gasses and particles. krakatoa changed our weather. our CO2 emissions may actually be accentuating a longterm climatory shift. we need to know the deeper pattern of the cycle to know if we have things at a variance off on a tangent to what presumably ought to be...

Aratus
07-19-2008, 08:36 AM
as with china's drive to have beijing host the olympics this year... reducing pollution reduces the number of people with lung problems, etc ... reducing pollution perhaps lets climatary shifts occure naturally. --- personally i feel this is a fifty/fifty judgement call. we need the air quality standards in place so some of us can adequately breathe, for starters... the more pollution in the air at the start of these games on 08.08.08 translates into less broken records...

Aratus
07-19-2008, 08:46 AM
beijing is a metaphor for this question. it is a bustling modern city that has had a deforestation
over time around the same. dust travels from the desert to china's capital city. smoke from coal
and exhaust fumes from the automobiles that have replaced the nationalist era bicycles
and rickshaws is omnipresent. china was under a recent pressure to clean up the skies... it
could be argued were there more tress, there would not be the dust storms that echo our
john steinbeck 1930s. mao's policies brought stalinistic smokestacks to china. to clearly make
a judgement call globally about this all requires a deeper awareness of the longterm cycles...

Aratus
07-19-2008, 08:47 AM
al gore isn't totally wrong on this question... he may be more than half accurate.

The_Orlonater
07-19-2008, 09:01 AM
beijing is a metaphor for this question. it is a bustling modern city that has had a deforestation
over time around the same. dust travels from the desert to china's capital city. smoke from coal
and exhaust fumes from the automobiles that have replaced the nationalist era bicycles
and rickshaws is omnipresent. china was under a recent pressure to clean up the skies... it
could be argued were there more tress, there would not be the dust storms that echo our
john steinbeck 1930s. mao's policies brought stalinistic smokestacks to china. to clearly make
a judgement call globally about this all requires a deeper awareness of the longterm cycles...


People also fart a lot. :D