Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

[kayak_hauler]

As a member of APS let me assure you all that Tripp has the correct data flow. This was an article in an unreviewed forum that happens to be run by APS.
That being said, I agree with Amped that we always have to be open to new data, nothing is written in stone unless it was brought down from a mountain. The evidence so far is clear that we as a carbon-burning species are having a strong effect on our environment.

Jeremy

[amped]

I was told on another forum that the disclaimer was added after the OP, and on another page than those I linked. When I checked, my computer pulled the older pages out of cache. Could be, but either way it appears a crack is developing in the "consensus science" argument, the point of the OP.

I agree with the post that it's about money. By one estimate, there's a pool of over $500B being allocated by global warming proponents such as the UN. You have to wonder how the results are tweaked to please the sponsors.

Moncton is seen as a twit. When more acceptable sources are revealed, like other APS members, it will make for an interesting debate.

[Godiva]

Who do I look to for the facts on Climate Change? Physicists or Climatologists? Decisions, decisions. A single op ed piece or 928 peer reviewed papers?

Maybe I should wait for the AMA and Bar Association to weigh in. Can't really decide until the licensed Architects have presented their peer reviewed papers.

After all, what could G8, Brazil’s Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, France’s Académie des Sciences, Italy’s Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Russia’s Academy of Sciences, the United State’s National Academy of Sciences, United States of America, the Royal Society of Canada, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Science Council of Japan, the Academy of Science of South Africa, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, the Royal Society, United Kingdom, Malaysia’s Academy of Sciences, New Zealands, Academy Council of the Royal Society, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Sciences, the Woods Hole Research Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, the American Association of State Climatologists, the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), the World Meteorological Organization, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society, the Pew Center on Climate Change, and 928 peer reviewed scientific journal papers know? None of them are Physicists.

Oh, wait. John Coleman, the local weatherman, says it's all bunk. So there you go.

[MegansPrius]

Originally Posted by amped

I was told on another forum that the disclaimer was added after the OP, and on another page than those I linked. When I checked, my computer pulled the older pages out of cache. Could be, but either way it appears a crack is developing in the "consensus science" argument, the point of the OP.

I agree with the post that it's about money. By one estimate, there's a pool of over $500B being allocated by global warming proponents such as the UN. You have to wonder how the results are tweaked to please the sponsors.

Moncton is seen as a twit. When more acceptable sources are revealed, like other APS members, it will make for an interesting debate.

A source for your "pool of $500 billion" would be nice...the UN's environmental wing, the UNEP, has an annual budget of $217 million.

Where the money really is, is in oil.

That's where the "billions" are.

Exxon shatters profit records
Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.

Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.

Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006


Peeved at Prices? Don't Blame the Dealer
Awash in Profit, Exxon Fights for Pennies While Raising the Rent...

And that's also where twits like Monckton get the underwriting for their uncrediantialed (he has a journalism degree) environmental science.

Christopher Monckton | DeSmogBlog
Christopher Monckton and the Heartland Institute

Monckton is listed as a "Global Warming" expert for the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based freemarket think tank. The Heartland Institute frequently attacks the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. The Heartland Institute has received over $791,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
The tobacco industry has also been a regular funder to the Heartland Institute, with at least $190,000 coming from Philip Morris since 1993. The Heartland Institute maintains a smoker's rights section on its website called "The Smoker's Lounge."

Christopher Monckton and the Science and Public Policy Institute

Monckton is listed as a "Chief Policy Advisor" for theScience and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). The SPPI was until recently managed under the name "Center for Science and Public Policy Institute" by another freemarket think tank called the Frontiers of Freedom.
The Frontiers of Freedom has received over $1 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

[bac]

Originally Posted by tripp

Here's the URL to their site:

APS

Nice catch, Tripp.

OP, welcome to the fail-bus.

... Brad

[dragonfly]

Originally Posted by amped

I was told on another forum that the disclaimer was added after the OP, and on another page than those I linked. When I checked, my computer pulled the older pages out of cache. Could be, but either way it appears a crack is developing in the "consensus science" argument, the point of the OP.

Do you even know what OP means?

[Wildkow]

Ahem . . . So the end is near, I'm a bit curious how much has the temp risen in the last ten years?

What's this?!? None you say! In fact it could have decreased a bit!

!LOL!

Sorry but anyone that believes in this hooey is either ill informed a Dumbass or
and anyone that tells you it is a settled matter or uncontrovertible is a .


Wildkow

p.s. that being said the reason I purchased my Prius on 1/2/06 was to decrease pollution in the
Central Valley of California, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save some bucks on fuel costs.

AND NOT TO RETURN THAT SAVINGS IN THE FORM OF TAXES FOR SOME ASININE
THEORY THAT WILL FUND CRANK SCIENTIST, ALLOW DEMONCRATS ANOTHER FUD ISSUE
OR MAKE AL GORE AND CRONIES RICH!

p.p.s. I happen to like it warm and I happen to like all the new plant growth due to the warmer weather and higher CO2 content in the air.

[dogfriend]

Originally Posted by Wildkow

p.p.s. I happen to like it warm and I happen to like all the new plant growth due to the warmer weather and higher CO2 content in the air.

Will you still like it if the temperature rise causes the snowpack to be much smaller than normal and you run out of water to grow the plants?

Seems to me (just observation, no data) that we aren't too far away from that now.

[F8L]

Please stop quoting Wildkows posts. He very ill informed and his posts on these subjects just have zero value and frankly appear quite immature. I have him on ignore and every time you quote him I have to read it. Tahnk you, carry on now.

[dogfriend]

Sorry.

I just wanted to express my concern. As a skier, I'm aware that the number of good snowpack years seems to be decreasing as I get older. For those that don't ski, you should still be aware that the snowpack is the source of water for the Central Valley of California.