Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Consensus Not
Topic Started: Jul 17 2008, 08:31 AM (497 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus...rticle12403.htm
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Ha. There goes the concensus. (And in fact it probably never existed.)
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
For what it may be worth, here's the latest APS statement on climate change on their website...

Quote:
 
National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
  (Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I wonder what that word "incontrivertible" means?

I think it means that Jolly's source is full of crap.

Quote:
 
We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


Sounds a lot like the consensus that we've all been talking about.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 17 2008, 01:11 PM
I wonder what that word "incontrivertible" means?

I think it means that Jolly's source is full of crap. 

Quote:
 
We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


Sounds a lot like the consensus that we've all been talking about.

I have no idea what "incontrivertible" means either. At least we can agree on something.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Jul 17 2008, 02:11 PM
I wonder what that word "incontrivertible" means?

I think it means that Jolly's source is full of crap.

Quote:
 
We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


Sounds a lot like the consensus that we've all been talking about.

My cite on the APS is from today. Al's is not.

If they see fit to reopen the question, incontrivertible is a word which no longer applies.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
That word never applies.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Pink Floyd used it on "The Wall" album. :unsure:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Editor's Comments - APS Forum on Physics and Society....

Quote:
 
With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. 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. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher  Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and 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. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)

Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy “production” by our Earth-bound societies must be faced. Fossil fuel supplies may become unavailable in this century – or the next – but in a finite system, obeying the laws of thermodynamics, non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later (within the foreseeable lifetime of our planet). One major energy resource, being much touted again, is that of the fissioning nucleus. Nuclear power faces three major drawbacks in the public eye: the possibilities of devastating accidents; the possibility of ”proliferation” – the diversion of energy resources and technology into weaponry; the problem of protecting present and future generations from “nuclear ashes”- the long-lived radioactive byproducts of power generation by nuclear fission. For the most part, our society has “stuck its head in the sand” regarding these issues, but we have spent a great deal of money exploring one possible means of dealing with the third problem – burying nuclear wastes deep underground (out of site, ergo out of mind). As the News item in this issue summarizes, the Federal government, after the expenditure of billions of dollars, seems to be ready to start sending long-lived wastes to be buried in Nevada. Many people there object – “not in my backyard”! As physicists interested in the impact of physics on society (and the converse), we are obligated to participate intensely in the public debate on this problem of waste disposal as well as the other two. The final resolutions will have to be political but hopefully they will be well informed by knowledge of the physical possibilities as well as constraints. For example, I am unaware of any public discussion about the practical possibilities of decreasing the amount of long-lived nuclear ashes via the use of fast neutron fission reactors for power generation. I hope to see much more discussion of these issues in the future “pages” of this journal. (I put quotation marks about the word “pages” since it now appears that we may no longer be communicating with you via the customary paper pages; what word(s) should we use?) We know that many of our readers are well informed on these topics and hope that they will share their physical insights with the rest of us – please submit articles, commentaries, letters, and enjoy the summer – whether its warmth is in line with past trends or represents a new climate. (AMS)


The entire issue with the articles pro and con is here: Physics & Society, July 2008

I would suggest reading both sides, not taking some blogger's excerpts as gospel. I personally don't regard the evidence of some specific effect as incontrovertible, but I'm not willing to bet the house on the odd chance they might be wrong.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Just a journalist, but is he wrong?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5000117,00.html
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
ivorythumper
Jul 17 2008, 04:19 PM
QuirtEvans
Jul 17 2008, 01:11 PM
I wonder what that word "incontrivertible" means?

I think it means that Jolly's source is full of crap. 

Quote:
 
We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


Sounds a lot like the consensus that we've all been talking about.

I have no idea what "incontrivertible" means either. At least we can agree on something.

It means 'I said incontrovertible, so you can't challenge me'. Much like a child says 'No do overs!'.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6070
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
QuirtEvans
Jul 17 2008, 04:11 PM
I wonder what that word "incontrivertible" means?

I think it means that Jolly's source is full of crap.

Quote:
 
We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


Sounds a lot like the consensus that we've all been talking about.

The blogger's point is fair, you don't dedicate an entire issue to debating something that is incontrovertible. Of course he should have said its an implicit reversal, since, as Al point out, their stated opinion seems not to have changed.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
their stated opinion seems not to have changed.



REALLY!?!?!?!?!



BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank_W
Jul 17 2008, 02:36 PM
Pink Floyd used it on "The Wall" album. :unsure:

Sorta yelled/screamed in a deep British voice...

"THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE JURY TO RETIRE!

Had to do the all caps thing to make it sound like it too! :lol:
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry, you've quit even attempting to make sense.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
They say they've gone from agreeing with the IPCC to not agreeing with it, you think they're opinion hasn't changed, and you think it's *me* who has stopped making sense?....

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Jul 17 2008, 03:11 PM
I wonder what that word "incontrivertible" means?

I think it means that Jolly's source is full of crap. 

Quote:
 
We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


Sounds a lot like the consensus that we've all been talking about.

I wonder what "reversed" means.
"Considerable presence" of skeptics

Quote:
 
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, [size=7]has reversed[/size] 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."


I wonder what "considerable" means.
Editors Comments

Quote:
 
There is a [size=7]considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree[/size]  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.


To paraphrase Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

I consider myself a skeptic on the matter. However, the facts that the APS is willing to re-examine the debate, and that there are scientists who are not convinced are, dare I say, incontrovertible.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry
Jul 18 2008, 11:24 AM
They say they've gone from agreeing with the IPCC to not agreeing with it, you think they're opinion hasn't changed, and you think it's *me* who has stopped making sense?....

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

You've misunderstood the APS as well as my post.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
[wiggle room]I may have misunderstood you[/wiggle room] but I have not
misunderstood the report. Perhaps in light of George's post you'll understand their report a little better too?


Hark! ....... what's that sound I hear? .. why, could it be the sound of a consensus falling down? :D or could it be there was no consensus to fall, and the sound I hear is egos slamming into a hollow ideology as it topples to the ground.......

hmmmm..............

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyElton
Fulla-Carp
:yawn:
Hilary aka LadyElton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
Jul 18 2008, 10:45 AM
Larry
Jul 18 2008, 11:24 AM
They say they've gone from agreeing with the IPCC to not agreeing with it, you think they're opinion hasn't changed, and you think it's *me* who has stopped making sense?....

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

You've misunderstood the APS as well as my post.

The APS official stance has not changed, Larry. They have "reaffirmed" their 2007 position (which Al quoted):

From their Homepage:

Quote:
 
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.


Nevertheless, I find it fascinating that they are willing to open the debate.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
They're willing to open the debate because while their 'official' stance has not changed - yet - a large percentage of them no longer agree with it. This would lead one to the logical conclusion that the "official stance" is about to change, and in fact has already except for actually putting it down on paper.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
what I like best about the Global Warming debate is how so many millions of people are 'so sure' about this absurdly complex scientific conclusion - millions of people who have never met a science textbook they weren't terrified of. I don't think a more perfect example of people believing what they're told to believe has existed in the last 50 years.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Here is Monckton's Letter to the APS.


19 July 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.com

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.

By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY



Here is the paper.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1