I can't wait to see this reported on the CBC tonight.

50,000 physicists?

So many personal attacks,

so little time.

Oh well, lets just go with the broad brush:

"physicists in general are liars".

That otta do it.

Based on the APS website their position has not changed.

APS Climate Change Statement
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

Big Al Gore said yesterday the Arctic ice would be gone in five years. Settled. Case closed.
It wouldn't occur to him and his band of merry Leftist scam artists the effect of seismic activity on the breakup of the ice. No. He's playing on the one string, human activity is the cause of all Global Warming/Climate Change, that's what fills the wallets of bozos like him. It's an industry fed by junk science.

The CBC and the rest of the manipulating media will poo poo APS, watch for it, they'll be the kooks. Bull Shit Al is their hero.

Before the trolls start....

I don't think the entire organization has changed it's stance, this was the editors of the forum have opened it up for debate.

"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 the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion."

All I can say is FINALLY!!!

It's great to see a major organization finally stop towing the AGW, "the debate is over", line when it comes to debate.

By my estimate, Monkton pummeled Hafemeister and Schwartz, who just seemed to repeat the IPCC, in the first round.

Uh oh,

looks like the global warming enforcement squad is getting down to work.

"pay no attention to the scientists behind the curtain.....they uhhhhm are not representative of us.......please attend to your local David Suzuki global warming thought cleansing center in order to properly purge your unhealthy skeptical beliefs"

I want to hear Al Gore's research and statistics on the amount of CO2 released from solution in the oceans as a result of ocean temperature rising. Does Al know what a positive feedback loop is, I wonder?

These are simple matters to explain. If he can't talk to these points, he is nothing more than a charlatan. The dead tree news industry should be asking him these simple questions before he puts them out of business.

Can't be true. The CBC science guy with the bad teeth said that there is unanimity in the science community on anthropogenic global warming.

The CBC don't lie, folks! Get out your hip waders for the impending tide.

Remember the CBC making a big fuss cause Harper's staff car was idling outside in the winter.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4006

It'll take a couple of kilometres of ice sheet on top of Toronto to get the AGW crowd to reverse its stance, I'm afraid.

'Course, if the Dalton Minimum really is returning, that just might happen...

Why did it take so long?
I state again, any grade eight science student can easily de-bunk man made global warming or man made climate change.
It's basic science for ....sake.
So why does it take fully trained scientists so long to figure out?

I can't wait to see this reported on the CBC tonight.

Posted by: bryceman at July 18, 2008 9:06 AM

Don't hold your breath. But there is mounting evidence that cracks in the cult solidarity are starting to appear. There was an article in the Slop and Pail a few weeks back about how the AGW scientists were having to "fine tune" their models (i.e. the observed data is now diverging strongly from the predicted model).

The truth has a strange, almost supernatural, way of always coming out.

Is it not interesting that some of the scientific mind here and the rest of altogether non scientist were telling the world that AGW is a big lie and a new age religion.
How is it that the scientists just figured it out?

Science doesn't matter to these folks. They come in two types, the shrewd and seasoned socialist political huckster that sees a big transfer of wealth opportunity and the poor little lefty empty vessels who have replaced the old God for the new Atmospheric God. Atmospheric God requires constant diligence and sacrific with a whole new set of sins to avoid. And, a big bonus point for the score settling victim whiners with new Atmospheric God, it's a She, Mother Nature. I'm not that far off the wall, do you think?

The one comforting thing about conforming lefties, and conforming to groupthink is what they are about, is that they fail to breed in adequate replacement numbers. Narcissism has its price.

Remember the CBC making a big fuss cause Harper's staff car was idling outside in the winter.

That's funny. Almost as funny is a little factoid I encountered the other day: Germany didn't want to send 6 jets to A'stan due to their expected contribution to "global warming".

here is a excellent site for keeping track of the artic ice density. it has data from 1979 to present. with comparable sat photos.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=16&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=16&sy=2008

the idiot "staff" over at CTV who claim polar ice could be gone this summer should give it a look. they should also consult with the goracle who claims it will be all gone in 5 years. this guy has nothing on the energiser bunny.

Here we go again: News reports that conflict with your worldview receive blistering criticism here. News reports that support your worldview receive a complete free pass. To wit:

1. DailyTech says, "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 says, "APS Position Remains Unchanged." From its website:

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.

***

2. DailyTech says, "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."

Mostly true, though it erroneously implies that the APS-P&S Forum speaks for the entire APS. Worse, it completely omits the Forum editor's further note that "a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion."

Omitting that last point results in a pretty skewed article, wouldn't you say? And isn't encouraging balanced reportage what SDA is all about?

Here we go again: News reports that conflict with your worldview receive blistering criticism here. News reports that support your worldview receive a complete free pass. To wit:

1. DailyTech says, "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 says, "APS Position Remains Unchanged." From its website:

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.

Speaking of idling...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo

Meanwhile, we have a political scientist telling us in the Vancouver Province not to believe "the deniers". A political scientist!!

It'll take a couple of kilometres of ice sheet on top of Toronto to get the AGW crowd to reverse its stance, I'm afraid.

You say it like it's a bad thing. The Ice sheet that is.

Spike: Nice link for my favourites.TYVM

clear...thanks for that link.
Why is Gore not scrutinized for his hypocracy by the media?

Never mind, silly question...

"The truth has a strange, almost supernatural, way of always coming out." -- Count on the MSM to be thelast to pick up on the fact that the AGW argument is being seriously challenged. There were two more "doom and gloom" reports in the Citizen today. It is almost like the looniness in Gulliver's Travels. Celestial Junk has a link to a very convincing article from the Australian News questioning AGW : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

They're scurrying for their holes already.

One eco-freak on WS parsed the statement, declaring that the APS are actually saying that science should be the final determining factor, not politics.

Well, duh!

This guy has spent years trying to create doubt among the skeptics.

But he and his ilk are such hypocrites.

They claim that science is something which is proveable, which it is ... then make gloom and doom prophecies about the future, which by defenition cannot be proveable, since it has not happened yet.

They claim they are forward-looking and can predict the future by looking at trends.

Perhaps they should just plunk their money into the stock market. Then, they'll realize just how smart (or stupid) they are.

"50 000 new deniers"

Hardly.
From the link you referenced --

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.

By the way, which party will climate-change deniers be voting for next election?

dizzy - I don't know a thing about 'climate change deniers'. Very few educated people deny that the climate changes; it's been changing in cycles from warm to cold to warm since the BigBang.

What educated people question is the scientific validity of declaring that the current warm phase is due to industrial activity or is due to the natural cyclic causes that have existed for millenia. There is no scientific proof that the industrial action is causing this warming.

By the way, there are a lot of 'groups' of scientists who reject not merely the apocalyptic scenario of AGW but also its basic axiom - of human agency.

You'll find reference to them and their analyses at the 2008 Heartland Conference, Hans Rosling's explanation, Ross McKitrick's book etc.

It is unscientific to name-call people who disagree with a hypothesis - and that is all that AGW is - a hypothesis. Therefore, I suggest that you do a bit more exploring before you call people 'deniers' - which suggests that your belief is religious rather than scientific.

Hey, dizzy, it's an exclaimer, pretty standard fare with organizations and companies now days, it doesn't subtract from the context of the article - a planned scientific debate and "that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming."

When people use the term "deniers" there is a form of zealotry in that choice of wording. It applies better to religion and cults which have no place in hard science.

And, dizzy, whether the climate has changed because of a human induced mechanism or the earth is just doing one of its, as in the fossil record, cyclical things is still up for grabs. But, then, dizzy, I'm sure you've got the gotcha, definative, 100% verified and proven without a doubt by a scientist held in more esteem than Einstein in the field of climatology confirmation paper that you are just dying to show us.

I'm guess most here will be voting Tory to protect their wallets until dizzy comes up with that definative confirmation paper.

Dizzy....you seem to not be able to grasp the point here. The validity of science is not determined from the top down. Top down dogma is more a characteristic of religion which, of course, AGW really is. What is taking place here is that many of the scientists of the APS are telling their Popes that they do not agree with the political position take by the APS and the matter is going to be debated regardless of the dictates of their "leaders".

50,000 more deniers? More like one editor who took it upon him/herself to speak for the society, and wishful thinking on SDA's part.

http://www.aps.org/

"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."

Seriously guys, to continue to pretend that dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact makes about as much sense as thinking that it's perfectly safe to swim in an unchlorinated pool after somebody took a shit.

You retards are so lucky there are smart people around to save your sorry asses. If left to your own devices, you'd be eating each other by now.

John:

If you can show me how anybody can prove future events using scientific principles, then I'd believe your baloney.

Meanwhile, stick to the facts.

John & Dizzy are right, to the extent that the update at the bottom of the linked article does make it clear it is not a statement for the entire group, as Kate's "50,000 new Deniers" quip makes it sound.

Past that however, they both appear to be prejudiced asshats.

Apostle John says "Seriously guys, to continue to pretend that dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact makes about as much sense as thinking that it's perfectly safe to swim in an unchlorinated pool after somebody took a shit."

Actually, the increase in CO2 (which comprises a very small portion of the atmosphere) has made earth extremely green with plant growth abundance. Take a big drink of the pool, John....you need it after swallowing all of that Al Gore KoolAid.

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.... and yadda, yadda, so what!

Hey, dizzy, John and Paula

Bottomline, there are dissenters within the APS. The APS is a voluntary professional organization, not necessarily representative of rank and file scientists any more than the AMA and ABA are representative of rank and file doctors and attorneys. Like many of these organizations they are politicized, if you like the politics you stay, if you don't you don't join.

So, it's back to square one again.

Another one bites the dust. Dr Evans Was the Australian Greenhouse Office's expert on greenhouse gas accounting from 1999-2005.
Until he saw the light.
No one argues with more conviction than a recent convert.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Penny,
Agreed... which I don't feel came through in the original blog entry. The updated version, however, seems spot on. :)

Also, for the record, unlike Dizzy & John I'm far from convinced there is a causal connection between Co2 emissions and global temperature shifts, in part because of the information I've run into on this site.

We should start referring to ourselves as Climate change infidels. Deniers isn't religious sounding enough.

Henceforth, I am a proud climate change infidel.

Getting back to Apostle John's absurd comment that "Seriously guys, to continue to pretend that dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact makes about as much sense as thinking that it's perfectly safe to swim in an unchlorinated pool after somebody took a shit."

Quite the visual there, Apostle John...but it is completely absurd but that is about par for a Gore Apostle. For the analogy to be more reasonable it would be more like adding minute traces of oxygen or hydrogen to the unchlorinated pool. CO2, after all is perfectly natural in the atmosphere and in the past has been many, many times higher than it is currently. Your attempts to equate CO2 as a pollutant is another trick of the brain dead AGW religious zealots.

John says, "Seriously guys, to continue to pretend that dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact makes about as much sense as thinking that it's perfectly safe to swim in an unchlorinated pool after somebody took a shit."

What an elegant analogy.

My observation in engaging in the climate change debate is that those who accept the C02-as-pollutant-and-must-be-stopped idea have two deficencies: they neither understand the critical role C02 plays in sustaining all life on this planet nor do they have much of an ability to get their heads around really big and really small numbers.

So telling them that the entire mass of the earth's atmosphere is estimated to be to be some 5.5 quadrillion (55 followed by 14 zeros) tons (4.99 quadrillion tonnes)or that the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (fluctuates seasonally and geographically) averages 0.038% or ~380 ppm doesn't hold much meaning.

But maybe John is a visual learner. So, try this. Take 999,620 white golf balls and spread 'em around on a tennis court - these represent the atoms of nitrogen, oxygen and other atmospheric gases. Keep in mind there's a lot of space between atoms. Now evenly disperse 380 yellow golf balls. They are pretty far apart, aren't they?

Consider this:

According to a study by the United States Department of Agriculture, an average person's respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day. That's just shy of a kilo per person, per day. With about 6 billion people in the world, that means that almost 600 million tonnes of C02 is respirated by humans alone - and not counting all the other critters who breathe on this planet as well - PER DAY - or about 2.2 billion tonnes per year.

This little factoid is never discussed by the AGW apostles. Nor is it ever mentioned that the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere - accounting for about 95% - is water vapor. Very tough to call it a pollutant.

So John, to get back to your analogy, the safety of your pool depends largely on the size of the pool, the size of the s*** and whether or not you know how to swim.

Good grief.

First of all yes, I have seen the brilliant video claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant. Brilliant. Nobody is claiming it is. What they are saying is that CO2 causes "the greenhouse effect", warming up the planet. Pulling CO2 out of the rock it's been locked in for the past few hundred million years however does pose many potential problems.

True... plants love the stuff. Can't get enough. But the problem with a rapidly changing climate is that it doesn't give us a chance to adjust quickly. Radical weather changes cause problems like crop failure, drought, etcetera.

And then there is the issue of changing the ocean's PH levels resulting in a quickly changing ecosystem, and possible collapse. Just to help you out here... if suddenly the oceans have fewer fish... we have less to eat. Since people like and need food... this too can cause problems.

Finally... I love this challenge:

"If you can show me how anybody can prove future events using scientific principles, then I'd believe your baloney."

How's about this. Fire burns. If you apply it to the pool of gasoline you are standing in (which also burns), you will die.

Here's another... an object in motion stays in motion. If you are in a moving car which suddenly comes to a stop, and you are not strapped into that car, you will continue to move... right through the windshield.

Those are two basic predictive bits of science that work in the real world. Climate change is admittedly far more complex, but believing that we can continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere without any consequences is not a smart move.

John:

Science is about measuring the measurable.

Science fiction is about prophecy.

Show us one instance where a future event has been measured today.

You and your ilk are full of bulls**t ... and since that is something that cannot be quantified, apparently it doesn't exist.

Humans breathe out CO2. How many of those who do not agree with you do you propose killing, or at least throwing in jail for a thought crime?

You can be as afraid of the future as you like, Chicken Little.

Not buying.

John: "I have seen the brilliant video claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant . . . Nobody is claiming it is.' -- didn't you just compare CO2 to "shit" in your very colorful analogy? Doesn't that imply "pollutant?" That is characteristic of the slippery thinking put forward by many AGW proponants, until you call them on it.

The UN's theme song on Global warming. Say's it all folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoJKWR3DIuA&feature=related

John, your analogies are idiotic. You make the statement "Here's another... an object in motion stays in motion. If you are in a moving car which suddenly comes to a stop, and you are not strapped into that car, you will continue to move... right through the windshield."

Yeah, that's true....but it is all predicated on the science at the beginning of your analogy (i.e., an object in motion stays in motion) being proven correct. If it is not, then everything in the chain of events you describe is wrong because the first principle is wrong. And that is the case with AGW.....it is nonsense to begin with.

I predict the sudden near extinction of vegetarianism in the near future.
Being fussy will not keep you alive. The fat plague will dissipate in short order.
The polar bears will be happy, as long as there is garbage.Ditto roaches.

On Wattsupwiththat today, the hysterics are launching a concerted counter attack by explaining blah blah blah.

This has hurt them, even if, as I suspect, the APS will try to back away from this statement. (Hey, there's serious money and careers at stake here).

WHOA, what was I saying:

Unusually for the THE JUNKMAN, there is a real-time running commentary on the goings-on at APS. I think the shit has really hit the fan. HAHAHANSEN :-)

If you go there, also follow the link to the Ozzie Daily Telegraph article. Easy to find, follow the Polar Bear :-)

Given the APS re-iteration of its previous statement in genuflection to Al ibn Gore and the IPCC, following its courageous editorial stance announced only yesterday, I wrote them a letter.

Their web site responded "Thank you for contacting us".

Well, they may wish to take that back when they read it on Monday morning. Nothing hostile or abusive, just accusing them of spinlessness and reducing the APS to the level of a political organization, rather than a scientific one, and therefore not worth being a member of.

Like I say, the soot has hit the fun.

Durwood @9.55 AM, because they are getting loads-a-doh to "prove" global warming from the likes of George Soros and the IPCC among others, and many national go9vernment bureaucracies.

This should be an interesting debate. I look forward to the results of such a discussion. A couple of specific comments.

Seachange: A couple of points. First, your math is not correct - however neither is your logic. In regards to human respiration, all the CO2 we breath out has come from the food we take in - which in one form or another is from atmospheric CO2 (to all intents and purposes). SO we are essentially just recycling CO2. The key thing about fossil fuels are that they introduce carbon which has been locked away from the atmosphere for millions of years.

Also do you have a reference for your 95% number?

John Luft: You said "And that is the case with AGW.....it is nonsense to begin with."

Well, I would consider the basis of AGW to be the following 3 statements:

1) we are responsible for all the current increase in CO2.

2) CO2 will absorb and re-radiate longwave radiation

3) enhancing the downward longwave radiation will cause an object to warm (or to cool less quickly).

So, which one do you disagree with?

Regards,
John

Do you really want to hold this guy up as your anti-climate change hero?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Oh, please, do. Seriously, please.

God bless Lord Monckton, the gift that never stops giving.

John Cross, don't your ears hurt after all that boxing?

Instead of you setting the biased, and irrelevant questions. Let's answer these basic, and very relevant questions.

1. Is the planet warming?
2. Is the warming caused by CO2?
3. Is the CO2 mankind produces enough to produce this warming?
4. Is this warming bad?

I want to see your answers then I will respond, and then you can counter and then I will wipe the floor with you.

hey, John Cross, I'm waiting.

personally I think its the oxygen thats of most concern.

note ferinstance there's TWO of them for every carbon atom in the much reviled CO2.

not a whole lot of burning going on that doesn't involve oxygen.

"Seriously guys, to continue to pretend that dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact makes about as much sense as thinking that it's perfectly safe to swim in an unchlorinated pool after somebody took a shit."

And yet it's safe to swim in a lake. Go figure.

What's with this unchallenged assumption that fecal matter makes water unsafe to swim in. Lakes are full of the stuff. And they're safe enough to swim in.

""""""How's about this. Fire burns. If you apply it to the pool of gasoline you are standing in (which also burns), you will die."""""

just gata luv these fools

no, gasoline does not BURN

if you took basic firefighting , you would know that vapours from heated gasoline burns, not the liquid gas

and that distintion is very important if you want to fight a "gas" fire

OK I'm going to bed now, but I want it recognized that my challenge to John Cross to answer my very simple questions has not yet been responded too, and still the challenge remains open.

Of course, John Cross, you may think you can continue to post on this subject without responding. Unfortunately for you, you will have no credibility. You must take the chhallenge or STFU.

Is John Cross going to finally start answering questions?

Is he going to clear his backlog up first?

Hmmm.

Then perhaps, he can point out the unstoppable human-induced global warming in this graph.

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

Then perhaps, he can try to explain this away....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf

It's interesting how the mandate for the IPCC specifically mentions "human-induced climate change" but specifically leaves out solar and other factors such as PDO. Thus we have a bureaucracy with a skewed, narrow mandate and a vested interest in playing up the least likely factor and trying to suppress the most logical.

Hey

"John Cross", I posted a response within two minutes of your posting. I think it is reasonable to figure that you have seen my response.

But ... you do not respond.

Well, I tell you this: the fact that you have not responded tells me, and the rest of the world, that you do not have a response, to very simple, and quite innocent, questions.

I think you are a shill without credibility. Perhaps you do strange things in the dark. One thing you most certainly do not do is discuss in daylight. Until you engage me in a discussion of my very simple questions, just go away.

And yes, I am being very agressive because I sense that the global arming hysterical thieving sandbaggers are on the run so I attack and pursue.

John Cross, your lack of response speaks volumes.

Cross said:
1) We are responsible for all the current increase in CO2.

No we are not, and you can’t prove it, unless of course you find appropriate apostle for your statement. The CO2 fluctuates over time by natural action of other variables.

2) CO2 will absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation

And? It has been doing it for billions of years.

3) Enhancing the downward long wave radiation will cause an object to warm (or to cool less quickly).

Simply stating a scientific fact, without regard to the religion of AWG.

Although there is no chance in hell that Cross will believe the science, he might have a peak at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html, just to have another perspective on things.
While it does not agree with the dogma it makes a lot of interesting reading.

RW - good for you. As is always the case when these capricious little trolls have their feet held to the flames by demanding that they answer specific questons, they run.

Will John learn anything from his encounter here, hardly.

DrD @ 3:37
Another one bites the dust. Dr Evans ...
Tks for the link. Powerful "infidel" ammo against "AGW cultists". I'll spread that link around.

1. Is the planet warming?
2. Is the warming caused by CO2?
3. Is the CO2 mankind produces enough to produce this warming?
4. Is this warming bad?

Good one RW
As a Canadian, I really like #4, in that my vehicles run better when not stuck on the cold enrichment fueling schedule.

John won't be responding promptly, as his call to Suezucci (re scripted talking points)has been put on hold. Rumor is Suezucci is furiously shoveling something and won't be available for a while.
(don't tell John; he's still on hold)

RW: Lets see . . . . stick around on the SDA site just in case someone responds or take my kids to the playground? Decisions decisions. OK, it was not actually that much of a decision - but if you wish to criticize me for it then so be it.

Now, lets review what was said. John Luft posted about the scientific basis of AGW and I responded with what I thought formed the scientific basis. All your comments have done nothing to address what was under discussion! Instead you want to change the discussion and then claim victory if I don't respond withing a certain time frame. If you think this is a valid form or argument then I would be happy to supply you with a list of discussions from this site which according to that criteria I have "won".

However I am always willing to look at the science involved so I propose this compromise. I will answer your first question and then listen as you respond to my first question. After that we can discuss and then after you have finished mopping the floor with me on the first question we can go on to the second. Deal? You, of course, have 2 minuted to decide to respond before I claim victory! ;-)

In regards to scientific creditability - well it may come as a surprise to you but I don't post on SDA to gain creditability. Whether my posts have it I leave up to the individual reader to decide for themselves.

Regards,
John

Four minutes have elapsed with no response from RW. John Cross--you win!

Dr. D and G: I was not aware of Evans, but I notice that Tim Lambert has a look at his argument over here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php#more

Good night,
John

John Cross
I was not aware of Tim Lambert , but I notice that J.F. Beck has a look at his argument over here:http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2005/12/tim-lambert-humourless-gutless-and.html

Good night,
G

John said;

"Well, I would consider the basis of AGW to be the following 3 statements:

1) we are responsible for all the current increase in CO2.

2) CO2 will absorb and re-radiate longwave radiation

3) enhancing the downward longwave radiation will cause an object to warm (or to cool less quickly).

So, which one do you disagree with?"

Let me see if I can answer just off the top of my head.....

1) We are responsible for only 3% of global CO2 emissions.

No point in bothering with the other 3 points since without #1 his case is lost.

Dirtman: your error is that you equate increase with emissions - they are not the same thing. So my point 1 is still very much in play. In fact if you wish to look at my argument in more detail you can find the most recent discussion on this thread. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009023.html

Using RW reason I have clearly won since no one posted after me, but I suspect that others would disagree with that criteria.

Regards,
John

Good Lord! Why does anyone bother arguing with John Cross? Over the years, the best way I've found with dealing with people like John is to say "Oh, really?", "Fascinating!", "You don't say!", "Uh-huh, uh-huh, ya...", and "Well!"

The AGW theory says "x" and the climate is showing "y"...to me, if the observations don't match the results predicted from your theory, then your theory is no good. Also, if you can determine other possible mechanisms for the observations to occur, then your theory becomes just so much speculation.

I'm no atmospheric scientist or chemical engineer (and, not surprisingly, neither is John Cross), but let's say for the sake of argument that John's three points are correct. What's missing is the quantum. What's also missing is: the GREATER EFFECT that WATER VAPOUR is having on those same three points and the (likely) GREATER EFFECT that SOLAR ACTIVITY is having on the climate and the GREATER EFFECT that VOLCANIC ACTIVITY under the north pole is having on the ice thickness at the north pole.

I liken the AGW theory to the "Butterfly Effect"...the flapping of a butterfly's wings (CO2 increase) causes a hurricane on the other side of the planet (global warming).

John Cross, we are not responsible for ALL the increase in CO2.

CO2 levels vary all the time and no one factor can account for the increase just as no one factor will account for the coming decrease. How do I know there will be a decrease? Historical cycles.

CO2 will absorb and re-radiate longwave radiation. Since there is not an infinite amount of longwave radiation increasing absorbing material will not increase capture. Since nitrogen is capturing the same radiation increases of the CO2 has no effect whatsoever.

Then of course are all the other factors that effect climate sun volcanoes etc. AGW is a crock designed to make rich people richer and employ civil servants.

"Here's another... an object in motion stays in motion. If you are in a moving car which suddenly comes to a stop, and you are not strapped into that car, you will continue to move... right through the windshield.

Those are two basic predictive bits of science that work in the real world. Climate change is admittedly far more complex, but believing that we can continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere without any consequences is not a smart move."

Huh? That's helluva intellectual non-sequitor, lad.

"we can continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere without any consequences is not a smart move."

And who says we are, exactly? Human interaction with the atmosphere is a homeostatic event, because, in the context of humans and atmosphere, we're in a closed system, one in which we evolved in. The operative word here is "homeostasis" Human s are, in the short term, redistributing the proportions of some components, perhaps (and even that is unproven in any significant way), but the planetary feedback mechanisms will compensate in due course. The zone of human perturbation is indeed small, as is our atmospheric zone, relative to the mass and physical dynamics of the planet, both extra and intra.

The future risk to us on this planet lies in over-population, not AGW, and guaranteed, Mother Earth has some interesting compensatory mechanisms to drag out when we reach that point. AGW alarmists spend so much time pissing into the wind, they're beginning to stink.

Hi John cross, I must admit, I went to bed.

But in case there were any doubts the FACTUAL answers to my questions were No, No, NO.

No, temperatures aren't increasing at present, haven't for 10 years.

No, MMCO2 is not the cause of the slight temeprature increase over the past 150 years.

No, any increase in temperature and CO2 will be beneficial for the planet.

BTW I apologise for playing a cheap trick argument on you.

Joe: As long as we produce more CO2 than shows up in the atmosphere then we can safely say that we are responsible for all the increase. This is a simple statement of logic, but I can go into it in more detail if you wish.

In regards to CO2 absorption of IR, the bands are not saturated yet and even if they were there would still be some increased warming associated with CO2 increases. Also, the CO2 molecule is tri-atomic while the nitrogen is dia-atomic. They do not capture the same wavelgenths of IR.

Regards,
John

Skip, I think I love you.

RW: From the Garnaut Climate Change Review DRAFT REPORT. They were asked the question "Is there any indication that there is a break in any trend present in the late 1990s, or at any other point?"

The asked two econometricians who concluded . . . The warming trend becomes steeper after the mid-1970s, but there is no significant evidence for a break in trend in the late 1990s.Viewed from the perspective of 30 or 50 years ago, the temperatures recorded in most of the last decade lie above the confidence band produced by any model that does not allow for a warming trend.

Regards,
John

RW: Forgot to say - apology accepted and my comments about not responding are hereby retracted.

Regards,
John