Real evidnce against AGW

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Bern80, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I heard this guy on the radio last Friday. He Probably gave the most convincing argument I've heard yet opposing man made global warming. The link is to a paper he wrote on the subject. Be warned it is lenghty and deep. Of interest however are his problems with the vaunted IPCC....
    APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

    You will note the opening paragraph from APS stating the paper was not peer-reviewed. To give some an idea of the politics behind this issue, read the following link......

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/sppi_press_release_monckton_paper_peer_reviewed.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2008
  2. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Quit denying climate change
    Saturday, July 26, 2008 The Oregonian
    David Reinhard is correct ("The climate-change debate heats up," July 24). There is not a consensus on global warming -- there is an overwhelming consensus. Every single scientific society states that global warming is happening, we are already feeling damage from the resultant climate change, and the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of this warming.

    The publication of Christopher Monckton's paper in an online newsletter of one of 39 units of the American Physical Society Forum on Physics and Society is hardly a break in scientific ranks.

    The introduction to that paper states that Monckton is not a scientist but an economist. And his article was not peer-reviewed, for had it been, it would have never been published.

    There were also a number of other nonsensical statements in Reinhard's essay. The role that carbon dioxide plays in the temperature regulation of the atmosphere was described over a century ago by Svante Arrhenius of Sweden.

    The science of the people who are concerned about global warming has been repeatedly shown to be correct. In fact, there are far more scientists stating that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change understated the effects and speed of the warming than are stating that the report was overly alarmist.

    RAYMOND HARVEY North Portland


    Article doesn't hold up


    After reading David Reinhard's July 24 opinion piece, I visited the Web site of the American Physical Society (APS Physics | APS Home), the apparent source of dissenting opinions regarding the scientific consensus about humanity's contribution to global warming.

    This is what I found: "American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November. 'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.'

    " . . . APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.

    Quit denying climate change - OregonLive.com
     
  3. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    so was it ever officially peer reviewed?
     
  4. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    No.
     
  5. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    If you're right then I won't waste my time reading it.
     
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    If you read the links, it was peer reviewed. Either he is lieing and went to great lengths of deceipt to give the indication that it was peer reviewed or what he is saying about the APS President haveing an agenda is true. Of course you two true believes would never believe the latter.
     
  7. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,431
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,866
    It sounds like his idea of peer review is a bunch of people posting comments online. I'm pretty sure the scientific community has a different definition of peer review.

    What purpose does it serve for Monckton to lie like this?
     
  8. TopGunna
    Offline

    TopGunna Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +26
    "Peer review"? Isn't science about trying to replicate results to test hypotheses?
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    It used to be---now it's as political as everything else. They gotta go for that research money, you know.
     
  10. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    That's the million dollar question. He sure went to some great lengths if he's lieing. He wrote a paper. Added 3000 words of clarification from what would have to be fake reviews. And wrote a letter to the president of the APS. From listening to him speak I have no reason to believe he's lieing. The facts that I understand in his paper are not really in contention. We have indeed experienced no warming in the last 7-10 years.
     

Share This Page