Off Topic: "Myth of Consensus explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

User Forum Topic
Submitted by jficquette on July 17, 2008 - 3:43pm

The truth is starting to come out about "Global Warming".

John

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consens...

"The 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."

"Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Submitted by Eugene on July 17, 2008 - 4:08pm.

http://www.aps.org/

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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Submitted by Arraya on July 17, 2008 - 4:23pm.

jificuette-You are a right wing radio farce. Do you get your talking points directly from Rush Limbaugh?

Come on dude, use your own head. Everything you say is right out of a playbook.

You don't have to worry, nothing is being down about GW, so you can sleep well knowing that.

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 17, 2008 - 4:33pm.

There are many huge environmental issues caused by humans. We have a tremendous impact on the environment. Exhaust gases and particulates from burning fossil fuels, genetically modified foods that are infecting and crossing with natural plants, pesticide and heavy metal pollution in groundwater, the overabundance of plastic waste that is clogging and choking the oceans, runoff from huge factory farms that spoils freshwater supplies, nuclear waste and of course nuclear weapons (including DU munitions), you can find hundreds of serious ecological issues with human causes with a couple of quick web searches.

Now ask yourself why the ONLY ISSUE we are being told that is important is that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is going to heat up the planet and flood New York City so we must immediately act to become "carbon neutral". Replace your lightbulbs that use less electricity but contain mercury and then feel good about yourself when you throw them in the trash.

While their may be some truth that increased CO2 has an impact on the climate, the real reason that governments are excited to do something about this is that it involves TAXING YOU, the serfs. The guys that really run the show, the guys who manufacture the plastics and pesticides and GMO foods and DU munitions and "earth-friendly" mercury lightbulbs will continue poisoning the planet and starting more wars while the rest of us lucky enough to survive their poisons and bombs will have to pay more taxes, possibly even to a global taxing authority.

This is a huge wealth confiscation scam, plain and simple. That doesn't mean that there aren't big environmental problems, it just means that TBTB are exploiting one of them to enrich themselves at your expense. That said, you can bet on them succeeding with this con and we'll all have another line on our paycheck stubs for our "carbon" tax in a few years. We'll continue polluting and poisoning our environment and things will keep getting worse and worse.

If politicians were actually serious about your health and keeping the earth safe, they would be providing incentives for people to live closer to work, they'd be starting public transportation initiatives, they'd be outlawing GMO foods, they'd be going after the huge polluters, they'd be trying to slow down the generation of the mountains of plastic trash we produce, they'd be banning DU munitions. Instead they're promising that if they can just add another tax that will fix everything. Just like all that social security tax you've been paying your whole life is going to help take care of you in your old age. Except of course that now they tell us that social security is bankrupt and that we won't actually receive any benefits -- funny, I haven't noticed any reduction in the amount of social security tax I pay. You can expect similar accounting curiosities with the new "carbon" tax.

I do think that we all have a responsibility to consume less resources, by the way. Drive only when you have to, take public transport when it is available, don't buy water in little plastic bottles, drive the wheels off of your car before replacing it, and when you do consider a hybrid, etc... Just don't expect that giving the government the ability to tax and regulate you further is going to do anything to help solve these very big problems.

Just my $0.02...

Submitted by jficquette on July 17, 2008 - 4:34pm.

arraya wrote:
jificuette-You are a right wing radio farce. Do you get your talking points directly from Rush Limbaugh?

Come on dude, use your own head. Everything you say is right out of a playbook.

You don't have to worry, nothing is being down about GW, so you can sleep well knowing that.

I really just don't understand why some are so easily mislead on so many issues.

Its actually the other way around. Everything the Global Warming crowd says it right out of a playbook.

Submitted by JPJones on July 17, 2008 - 4:43pm.

Epic fail.

Thanks for doing our homework for us, esmith. This thread was good for a laugh at least.

Submitted by jficquette on July 17, 2008 - 4:49pm.

esmith wrote:
http://www.aps.org/

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.

That's just politics. They are more concerned with getting grant money to do their projects and keeping their job. This means appeasing the Global Warming crowd to the extent possible.

Submitted by Arraya on July 17, 2008 - 5:04pm.

I'm not talking about this specific issue. Which I have my own issues on how it is presented to the public. It's all of your post's. You stance on oil, GW and Obama is right out of right wing talk radio playbook.

Show some individuality.

This planet is an ecological disaster on many levels and would take many many books for you to understand the breadth of problems. GW is not the scariest monster at our villages door. At least not in the respect that we can do anything about it.

The decline of world oil production will take care of even the most aggressive climate scientists wishes on carbon reduction. We should start terminal decline somewhere between late 09 to mid 2011. However, it renders our fractional reserve, grow or die, fiat based economic model useless.

Submitted by NotCranky on July 17, 2008 - 5:13pm.

"However, it renders our fractional reserve, grow or die, fiat based economic model useless."

How long does this take Arraya? What is the course it takes?

Submitted by Ash Housewares on July 17, 2008 - 5:31pm.

Here's a hypothetical question- How much agreement do you need before you have a consensus? How certain do you need to be?

I don't think there will EVER be 100% agreement about many topics in science. Natural selection is still denied by a few with biology backgrounds, despite it being the basis for modern medicine and substantiated by the fossil record. We don't even know how gravity works, does that mean we should cancel all new airplane orders (some evidence suggests particles at opposite ends of the universe exert forces on each other instantaneously- in contrast to the speed of light "speed limit")? So there will always be some degree of uncertainty, but that should not stop us from planning accordingly to what we think is most likely to be true. If you wait for certainty you will wait a long time, maybe forever, meanwhile the window of time you had to do something will have long past.

There was no 100% agreement that Iraq had WMDs, but I'd bet a years wages you supported the invasion on what intelligence we had. Why the double standard? Why is spotty intelligence good enough when it fits your views, but nothing short of 100% certainty is required for ideas you find unappealing?

Submitted by Arraya on July 17, 2008 - 7:00pm.

How long does this take Arraya? What is the course it takes?

It's hard to say. It looks as if, from the either incompetence, greed or design, we are going to a financial system induced deflationary period similar to the 30's.

Interestingly, if this was not happening the effects of oil depletion would be similar to the financial induced depression we are seeing unfold before our eyes. Basically, our economy has been debt based growth for a decades. To put simply: without net energy gain we can no longer grow our economy in the sense that we know and thus that debt can't be serviced. Literally trillions upon trillions of dollars HAVE to default from the system. I suspect this will play out over the next 6-24 months because once terminal decline starts, it's over and the globalized system will seize up and collapse if it has not all ready. The economy is dead man walking and most of our leaders know this.

There are solutions. Communities need to come up with plans to deal with this. Every local region has it's own issues with food, water and infrastructure and it would be advantageous for everyone to know what they are.

Submitted by SDEngineer on July 17, 2008 - 7:20pm.

jficquette wrote:

That's just politics. They are more concerned with getting grant money to do their projects and keeping their job. This means appeasing the Global Warming crowd to the extent possible.

Really? Considering the largest source of those grants is the US Government which has been HOSTILE to GW since Bush took office, that doesn't make any sense.

Besides, energy and oil companies pay better.

Submitted by kewp on July 17, 2008 - 8:39pm.
Submitted by Daverz on July 18, 2008 - 4:13pm.

Even Jonah Goldberg admitted he was taken in by this article.

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 18, 2008 - 4:45pm.

Again, I think people need to stop getting taken in by the "GW is real/GW is not real" sideshow and keep their eyes on the ball. This is a textbook 3-card monty play to get us all to accept a horrible regressive tax. TBTB are gearing up to tax us on our carbon output and they'll use that money to pay bureaucrats instead of doing a damn thing to clean up or fix our environment. If you make $25K a year and you drive a car and run your air conditioner, you will pay the same carbon tax as the guy who makes $500K a year and drives a car and runs his air conditioner. The rich guy will pay a little more of course because his house and car are nicer, but the carbon taxes will basically be consumption taxes -- regressive and unfairly burdensome on those least able to afford them while leaving the super-rich untouched.

All of these supposed solutions like making a "cap&trade" market and adding new regressive taxes are not going to magically make the problems go away. Again, if we were serious about this problem we would be funding solar energy, wind energy, even nuclear energy, we'd be building public transport systems, we'd be giving incentives for people to live closer to work, but again we're not hearing any of those ideas.

Think of it like social security. The government added a tax so that we would all be able to survive old age without starving but now it is of course bankrupt and we're told that we'll be lucky to receive any benefits at all when we're old. Yet they keep taking the tax out of our paychecks and they always will. GW is being used to scare everyone into accepting a new carbon tax, but this time it will be even worse because it's not a progressive tax based on income like SSDI but rather a regressive consumption tax. It is a wicked parlor trick, and the best thing about it is that no one will ever be able to say whether it's working or not. The government will just release reports saying "We're putting 10% less carbon into the environment!" and we'll all ooh and aah and feel good about ourselves and meanwhile the hurricanes will keep coming and the ice will keep melting.

Just my $0.02...

Submitted by Aecetia on July 18, 2008 - 9:00pm.

I agree with Concho, it will just lead to more taxes.

Ronald Reagan said it best:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."

Submitted by yellow8yellowm on July 19, 2008 - 8:50am.

1. Concensus: This means nothing. In Galileo's day everybody agreed that the sun revolved around the earth, but they were all wrong. The list of the concensus being wrong goes on forever.

2. Correlation does not mean causation: If you assume temperatures have risen at the same time that CO2 has risen this does not prove that CO2 causes GW.

3. Stance changes: In 70's there the mantra was "global cooling". This changed to "global warming" and now it is more of just plain old "climate change".

It is pretty obvious that this is more than just a scientific belief. It is more of a sociopolitical belief, or even a religious belief. It is not cooling, warming, or change that people are worried about. These people are just need something to feel good about. They don't care about evidence or proof because you don't those things when you have faith. Look at all the wood burning stoves in Marin County for example.

Don't get me wrong everybody. I don't like pollution either, but I think the alarmist/unscientific attitude of environmentalism needs some change.

Submitted by jficquette on July 19, 2008 - 9:22am.

Daverz wrote:
Even Jonah Goldberg admitted he was taken in by this article.

All you have to do is search on the Internet and you will find many articles debunking global warming as a joke.

I can't stress enough how much money plays into what some scientists support. The great majority of scientists who claim that humans are causing climate change are getting paid through grants given by entities who want them to find the link between Humans and Global Warming. If they don't support their sponsors views they are out of a job.

John

Submitted by jficquette on July 19, 2008 - 9:37am.

yellow8yellowm wrote:
1. Concensus: This means nothing. In Galileo's day everybody agreed that the sun revolved around the earth, but they were all wrong. The list of the concensus being wrong goes on forever.

2. Correlation does not mean causation: If you assume temperatures have risen at the same time that CO2 has risen this does not prove that CO2 causes GW.

3. Stance changes: In 70's there the mantra was "global cooling". This changed to "global warming" and now it is more of just plain old "climate change".

It is pretty obvious that this is more than just a scientific belief. It is more of a sociopolitical belief, or even a religious belief. It is not cooling, warming, or change that people are worried about. These people are just need something to feel good about. They don't care about evidence or proof because you don't those things when you have faith. Look at all the wood burning stoves in Marin County for example.

Don't get me wrong everybody. I don't like pollution either, but I think the alarmist/unscientific attitude of environmentalism needs some change.

Another factor is it gives them something else to blame on "big business" and Republicans.

They don't see to care that the biggest polluter on earth is communist China or that they are burning down the rain forest in Brazil to make charcoal.

John

Submitted by jficquette on July 19, 2008 - 9:48am.

arraya wrote:
I'm not talking about this specific issue. Which I have my own issues on how it is presented to the public. It's all of your post's. You stance on oil, GW and Obama is right out of right wing talk radio playbook.

Show some individuality.

This planet is an ecological disaster on many levels and would take many many books for you to understand the breadth of problems. GW is not the scariest monster at our villages door. At least not in the respect that we can do anything about it.

The decline of world oil production will take care of even the most aggressive climate scientists wishes on carbon reduction. We should start terminal decline somewhere between late 09 to mid 2011. However, it renders our fractional reserve, grow or die, fiat based economic model useless.

Peak oil is another myth. The world will have quit using fossil fuels for primary electrical generation way before we quit looking for new reserves.

Democrats use peak oil as an excuse to prevent exploration of new reserves in America. They rather pretend there is no oil to find.

John

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 19, 2008 - 10:24am.

Look carefully and see the mechanism at work. There are two teams that take turns managing USA Inc.

Team A: Makes you scared of terrorists so that you won't complain when your civil liberties are taken away and your tax dollars are wasted on pointless wars of empire. Of course there are some real terrorists that sometimes kill people but then again there are also car crashes (40000 die each year!) tornadoes and hurricanes and lightning and earthquakes and sharks that also kill people but let's just forget about them and be really scared of terrorists, okay?

Team B: Makes you scared of global warming so that you won't complain when your civil liberties are taken away and your tax dollars are wasted on pointless wars of empire. Of course there might be some truth that CO2 is warming up the atmosphere but of course there are also GMO foods, DU munitions, carcinogenic pesticides, heavy metals in our trash that leach into the groundwater, giant fields of decaying plastic waste in the ocean that kill untold millions of fish and marine animals, poisonous vaccines that also hurt people but let's just forget about them and be really scared of global warming, okay?

At any point in time a little over half of the population supports one team and a little less than half supports the other team. Whenever a new team is given control of USA, Inc., those supporters cheer like when their favorite football team wins and then they strut around and act really tough. Meanwhile the new management team commences another round of economic rape against them while they're not even looking and they wonder why they're working harder than their parents did but not taking as many vacations and they're stressed out all the time because the prices keep going up and their health insurance benefits and pensions get cut again and on and on and on it goes...

Submitted by Aecetia on July 19, 2008 - 10:33am.

Each side puts a different face on the Bogeyman, with the same result, to give the masses something tangible to fear, rather than think about their loss of freedom. It reminds me of the movies in the 50's where we were being invaded by aliens from outer space. The real fear then was nuclear annihilation, but aliens were preferable to our fellow humans. This is the 2000's version of space aliens with better graphics.

Submitted by afx114 on July 19, 2008 - 11:30am.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

Rumor Debunked: No Flip-Flop on Global Warming

On their homepage, the APS has now placed a statement that reaffirms its 2007 position statement on global warming, which also states, "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." It adds that mitigation efforts must be taken immediately.

Submitted by arthurdent on July 19, 2008 - 2:20pm.

There's more to this "rumor" than what Livescience wants to admit. If you visit the article links, the APS editors statements are still up on their site, and the debate papers are still published.

It appears that the ruling council of the APS responded to this story by "circling the wagons" and disavowing the actions of one of their units.

No great surprise, given how much research funding the GW gravy train is now bringing in.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.