Physicists at war

[Sei'taer]

It appears the physics world is in a tizzy. This is a link to Christopher Monckton's analysis of climate sensitivity (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm) (yes, I'm as much of a nerd as anyone else here) and the problems of the science associated with it. I am posting this for several reasons.

1. I found the paper to be informative.

2. The article is started by a note from the APS stating that the article was not peer reviewed. Monckton is furious about that and wrote this letter (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/lord_monkton_s_letter.html) to Dr. Bienenstock, who is the president of the APS stating that it was indeed peer reviewed.

3. The letter then moved on to this back and forth action (http://www.webcommentary.com/aps.htm). I thought it was hilarious and I am hoping that it continues to flow. I think that this is why scientists say that consensus is impossible.

4. I want to see who has the last word. The longer it goes, the funnier it is...The M of B has a reputation for not giving in easily.

5. It seems that the physics world is gathering up behind both men, and I want to see if there is an all out nerd war between the 2 factions. Short sleeves and ties, red pens and pocket protectors, thick glasses flyin'...it should be great!

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Well, physicists are not difficult to rile up, Sei. I can personally attest to that. They like to call each other 'examples of unevolved humanity,' at every opportunity, to quote one of my favorite fictional physicists.

However, I doubt this heated discussion among the pocket protector set will change anyone's mind, now.

[Terez]

Monckton is a "politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley). Not a physicist. lol. He has a diploma in journalism. :rolleyes:

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Journalist or not... anyone check his math?

[Terez]

Well, there's this elusive "physics professor" that Monckton claims is his "peer review"...

[GonzoTheGreat]

Oh man, I look at his very first graph, and what do I notice? It depicts the period 2001-2008, and in that period the temperature is falling a bit.
Now, what else happened in that period? The solar cycle went from a maximum to a minimum. And what's associated with that? Lower temperatures, that's what.

I am almost tempted to ask: did he think of correcting for that?

[Terez]

I am almost tempted to ask: did he think of correcting for that?
And these are the guys hollering that the IPCC isn't taking the sun into consideration. :rolleyes:

There's a great bit of debunking of this that can be found with some easy searching. But here's the story of what happened, since it's not really clear from the links provided above (I did a little digging to make more sense of it).

The APS decided (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm) to host an invitation to discourse on the subject of climate change, since it's such a controversial and misunderstood subject. This discourse was hosted in a newsletter, which is quite a different thing than a scientific journal.

Monckton's essay was originally published without the disclaimer. But as soon as it was published, climate change skeptics began to use this as evidence that the APS had reversed their position on climate change (which is very telling of the enormous amount of desperation on the side of said skeptics). In response to this grievous misunderstanding, the APS added the disclaimer to the beginning of Monckton's article.

Monckton then insisted that his article had been peer reviewed, because the editor who reviewed his article happened to be a physicist, and because the article was eventually approved for publication. But it's clear from the APS page on the project why they felt the need to clarify their position after the publication of the article was touted as a position reversal.

I will agree with Taer, though, that the aftermath is pretty hilarious (if a bit pathetic).

[John Snow]

Journalist or not... anyone check his math?
but his math looks okay to me. My first reaction was it wasn't the math that was questionable, but his data and his underlying assumptions. And seeing what Gonzo and Terez wrote, I'm thinking my first reaction was right.

The whole climate change business strikes me as similar to Pascal's Dilemma - what happens if we do nothing ----> and a) there is no climate change or b) there is climate change
or
we do the best we can to remedy the warming and
a) there is no climate change or b) there is climate change

Surely wise people have thought this through and weighed risks and costs, without letting emotion and thinking about how they wish the world was influence conclusions........

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Which is why I advocate conservation and preservation without worrying about whether humans themselves are causing global warming. ;)

[John Snow]

Which is why I advocate conservation and preservation without worrying about whether humans themselves are causing global warming. ;)

Tell it, sister! :)

[Sinistrum]

*sigh* Bad Sei! I really didn't want to have to put up with another round of anthropological global warming proselytizing.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Wish everyone felt as you did, Snow. But because I still think the jury's out on the subject, and because Bryan and I hate the hypocrisy of the "greenies," we get labelled neo-cons or whatever.

I'm saving my Ozaka water bottles to start seeds in for my garden. I'd call that recycling. We reuse the plastic grocery bags from the store (except the ones the raw meat get packed in) as garbage bags and lunch sacks. The magazines I don't keep get saved up to take to the nearest paper recycling center. We live in an Energy Star Home and have Energy Star appliances. We save up our errands and plan the most efficient route to accomplish them and only make one trip to the grocery store per week (hence the unfeasiblity of those ridiculous cloth sacks).

We own one car and I carpool to work.

I don't give a rats ass if the scientists say others' excesses are causing the world to turn to Venus since I am already doing my part (and have been since the age of 12) and we do our best to reduce our "carbon footprint" already. Too many "fashionable" theories are often overthrown in a few years anyway. Remember the 1950's when global cooling was the great fear?

Conservation and preservation, reducing, reusing and recycling are always always always good ideas in humanity's best interest.

No matter what the weather forecast is.

[Brita]

Conservation and preservation, reducing, reusing and recycling are always always always good ideas in humanity's best interest.

No matter what the weather forecast is.

Now who can argue with that? I know this is TL and we have experts at being contrary, but really, who can argue with this?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Anyone who decides nothing I have to say is important because I'm not 100% convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[Terez]

Which is why I advocate conservation and preservation without worrying about whether humans themselves are causing global warming. ;)
Since you often post in these threads, denying that we're in any way responsible for it, it's obvious that you worry about it. ;)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

That makes absolutely no sense and if that's what you think, you haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing, just jumping to your own conclusions about what I'm saying or not saying.


I post in these threads to point out it doesn't matter what the scientists say, you should still be conserving, preserving, reducing, reusing and recycling.

[Terez]

That makes absolutely no sense and if that's what you think, you haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing, just jumping to your own conclusions about what I'm saying or not saying.


I post in these threads to point out it doesn't matter what the scientists say, you should still be conserving, preserving, reducing, reusing and recycling.
I do pay attention to what you say, and though you do constantly go on about how we should conserve no matter if there's warming or what the cause of warming is, you also have said several times things like, to assume that humans can affect the planet to any dangerous degree is arrogant, the planet has been hot in the past and this is nothing new, etc.

[Sinistrum]

That makes absolutely no sense and if that's what you think, you haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing, just jumping to your own conclusions about what I'm saying or not saying.

Gilly, stop confusing her with the facts. It makes it a lot harder for her to demonize you into one of the bad guys from Captain Planet.

[Terez]

I'm not demonizing anyone. But Gil is trying to denounce folks as hypocrites, without anything substantial to back it up, so I figured I'd point out her bit of hypocrisy to put a bit of perspective on the issue. :)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I'm not demonizing anyone. But Gil is trying to denounce folks as hypocrites, without anything substantial to back it up, so I figured I'd point out her bit of hypocrisy to put a bit of perspective on the issue.

Since when is preaching conservation and not toeing the party line on Global Warming hypocrisy? And, Terez, what does my preaching conservation have to do with whether or not I think it's our fault the sky is trying to cook us? I believe we should be conserving no matter the cause, or no matter the pattern in the weather, global warming or global cooling, greenhouse or swiss-cheese ozone or whether the planet's peachy-keen and healthy as an Olympic Athlete.

I don't actually give a shit what the scientists have to say on the matter because, frankly, I've been a responsible child of the planet for quite some time and I believe everyone should be as well. I post in these threads to say what I believe, just as you do.

I do believe it is arrogant to think we can effect the entire balance of the planet. However, wastefulness harms us and those species dependant upon us. The earth will continue long past OUR expiration date. The planet HAS been hot in the past (unless the Discovery Channel and PBS has LIED To me), and it will be again. I honestly believe that preservation and conservation is what will save us in those periods of time when our planet is not human-friendly.

Gilly, stop confusing her with the facts. It makes it a lot harder for her to demonize you into one of the bad guys from Captain Planet.

She believes what she wants to believe about me. I understand I cannot change anyone's opinion of me (except, of course, YOURS -- unless you think I'm still a bitch and a slut?) and usually it's too much of an effort to try.

[Sinistrum]

so I figured I'd point out her bit of hypocrisy to put a bit of perspective on the issue.

So there isn't any middle ground between a in belief conservation and lack of belief in anthropological global warming that would allow someone to remain logically consistent huh? That sounds an awful lot like either you're with us or against us. That's a bit of a fundamentalist mindset, don't you think? Might even call it a bit preachy... ;)

[Birgitte]

Can't we just enjoy the mental picture of physicists fighting with each other in peace?

It looks something like this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=y2li3PLmCmw). (sorry about the quality... it was all I could find of that)

Or, if you just want the fight, look here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JwsRg6h28c&NR=1).

[Gilshalos Sedai]

LOL, I love that show.

[Terez]

Since when is preaching conservation and not toeing the party line on Global Warming hypocrisy?
That's not what I said. All I'm saying is that, since you almost always have something to say on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, it's obviously important to you. So your statement above, that it's not important to you, is hypocrisy.

And, Terez, what does my preaching conservation have to do with whether or not I think it's our fault the sky is trying to cook us?
They don't have anything to do with each other - that's my point. If the subject of anthropogenic climate change was not important to you, then you wouldn't comment on it so often - you would merely make your case about how conservation is important no matter what the cause of warming.

I believe we should be conserving no matter the cause, or no matter the pattern in the weather, global warming or global cooling, greenhouse or swiss-cheese ozone or whether the planet's peachy-keen and healthy as an Olympic Athlete.
I agree.

[Terez]

So there isn't any middle ground between a in belief conservation and lack of belief in anthropological global warming that would allow someone to remain logically consistent huh? Well, there's plenty of middle ground on the subject. I don't think that anyone here is 100% convinced that there's an impending man-made climate disaster. But either the issue is important to you or not. If you have something to say about it just about every time the subject comes up, then obviously it's important to you.

[Sei'taer]

Oh man, I look at his very first graph, and what do I notice? It depicts the period 2001-2008, and in that period the temperature is falling a bit.
Now, what else happened in that period? The solar cycle went from a maximum to a minimum. And what's associated with that? Lower temperatures, that's what.

I am almost tempted to ask: did he think of correcting for that?


I'm going to email him and find out. I've sent several emails to him and he has always taken time to reply.

If nothing else, I'm incredibly curious about all manner of things. You wouldn't believe the emails I send just to see if I get a response or not. Usually all you get is a preset response email...and the same one every time. Our congress is notorious for this. Thats all I have ever recieved from any of them. Every once in a while you do run into someone who will reply, if not always very quickly, at least in a reasonable time. M of B (thats how he signs his emails) is one of these. Bob Costas is another who will take the time to reply, which really blew me away. I figured him for a preset message kind of guy. I guess it's all in how you ask.

Gonzo, do you mind if I quote you directly in the email? If not I can paraphrase it and still get the same kind of answer...maybe...lol.

[John Snow]

I don't think that anyone here is 100% convinced that there's an impending man-made climate disaster.

Ahem. Me.

But Gilshalos' point is also well-taken. Regardless of what one thinks about the cause of global warming, doing the best one can to conserve, etc, is a very rational course of action. Again, see Pascal's Dilemma (is that what it's called? Doesn't sound quite right....)

[Terez]

Ahem. Me.
Well, I suppose every forum needs a pessimist. :D

[GonzoTheGreat]

Gonzo, do you mind if I quote you directly in the email?
Go ahead. If I hadn't been willing to have it read by anyone that wandered by, I wouldn't have posted it.

Of course, now and then I think of that a bit too late, but that's the risk you take when speaking (or writing). In this case I would have formulated it a bit different if I had gone to send the email myself, but I do not think it would be honest to ask you to change my words.
Do make sure to make clear that they are not your own words. On the one hand, that will preserve my copyright (sort of), on the other hand it may help with not making him angry at you. Or not too angry to answer, perhaps.

[Sei'taer]

Go ahead. If I hadn't been willing to have it read by anyone that wandered by, I wouldn't have posted it.

Of course, now and then I think of that a bit too late, but that's the risk you take when speaking (or writing). In this case I would have formulated it a bit different if I had gone to send the email myself, but I do not think it would be honest to ask you to change my words.
Do make sure to make clear that they are not your own words. On the one hand, that will preserve my copyright (sort of), on the other hand it may help with not making him angry at you. Or not too angry to answer, perhaps.


I'll post it here after I send it. And not to worry about pissing him off. I'm positive that at least once I have pissed him off...is it too much of a pun to say royally. I don't really think he takes any of it personally. Actually, you'd probably like him Gonzo, he's a pretty cool guy from what I can see from emailing him.

[Birgitte]

If you have something to say about it just about every time the subject comes up, then obviously it's important to you.

Terez, she cares about conserving and just takes the issue as an opening to share her views about that. She's on the opinionated side, so she has an opinion on global warming and she shares it since that's what the thread is technically about and Gil isn't really one for hijacking. It isn't the global warming that she cares about. It's the conserving. They mostly go hand in hand, so global warming is the perfect opening to preach conservation. And she does, while trying to stay as close to the original topic as possible.

[Terez]

Terez, she cares about conserving and just takes the issue as an opening to share her views about that. She's on the opinionated side, so she has an opinion on global warming and she shares it since that's what the thread is technically about and Gil isn't really one for hijacking. It isn't the global warming that she cares about.
Not true, since she always comments on it.
It's the conserving. They mostly go hand in hand, so global warming is the perfect opening to preach conservation. And she does, while trying to stay as close to the original topic as possible.
She would be fine on the original topic to talk about conservation (since it's of course related), but she always talks about how there's no way humans are responsible for global warming. So she's being dishonest when she says she doesn't care about that particular aspect of the subject.

[Sei'taer]

Lord Monckton,

I posted your piece on the website I was telling you about, along with several of the letters passed back and forth between you and the president of the APS and received several questions that I was hoping you might be able to answer. I will understand if you are not able to because I am sure you have better things to do with your time than to keep answering questions from me. If you wouldn’t mind though, it would be very nice because it would add a lot to our conversation.

1. Monckton is a "politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor". Not a physicist. lol. He has a diploma in journalism

It amazes me when people say things like this and I was just wondering how you would reply to such a statement.

2. Oh man, I look at his very first graph, and what do I notice? It depicts the period 2001-2008, and in that period the temperature is falling a bit.
Now, what else happened in that period? The solar cycle went from a maximum to a minimum. And what's associated with that? Lower temperatures, that's what.

I am almost tempted to ask: did he think of correcting for that?

Not only is this person curious about that, I am also curious. Was this taken into account? Also, I asked this person if I could quote him directly and he said:

Go ahead. If I hadn't been willing to have it read by anyone that wandered by, I wouldn't have posted it.

Of course, now and then I think of that a bit too late, but that's the risk you take when speaking (or writing). In this case I would have formulated it a bit different if I had gone to send the email myself, but I do not think it would be honest to ask you to change my words.
Do make sure to make clear that they are not your own words. On the one hand, that will preserve my copyright (sort of), on the other hand it may help with not making him angry at you. Or not too angry to answer, perhaps.

Perhaps not really pertinent to the whole discussion, but I thought it was a funny answer.


3. The whole climate change business strikes me as similar to Pascal's Dilemma - what happens if we do nothing ----> and a) there is no climate change or b) there is climate change
or we do the best we can to remedy the warming and a) there is no climate change or b) there is climate change

Surely wise people have thought this through and weighed risks and costs, without letting emotion and thinking about how they wish the world was influence conclusions........

How would you recommend handling this dilemma?


A lot of discussion on this site has gone into conserving and recycling even if we don’t believe in AGW (some of us really don't have anything better to do). I would like to think that there are alternative choices out there for fuel, but think we have to get there from here and the only way to do that is to use the fuel we have now until a better choice comes along. I also don’t believe that things like wind or solar power are going to be the saviors of the world. Do you have any ideas on where we go from here?

[John Snow]

Thanks, Sei'taer - could be interesting. Reminds me of when my daughter was in middle school and got an assignment to do some sort of report on the internet. She somehow found Vint Cerf's email, wrote him, and got back a very nice reply, and they corresponded a couple of times to flesh out her paper. Very nice guy.

[Sei'taer]

Thanks, I'll let you know when I get a response. I think it's a lot of fun just to email people and see if you get a response. Like I said, some turn out to be very nice and some turn out to be duds, but I always give it a shot if I can.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Internet Stalker.

[Birgitte]

~winces~ Ouch, Taer... Did you have to go with THAT color? Interesting email, though. I'm can't wait to see the answer. Even if you are an internet stalker.

Terez, the original topic is never conservation, so bringing it up is not sticking to the topic. Global warming and conservation are related, but they aren't the same. Gil doesn't like to hijack, so she includes her opinion on the actual topic when she posts to preach conservation. It just works out that people only reply to the part about global warming, since that's what everyone's thinking about. So that's what she ends up talking about. And since when does posting about something really add up to caring? Dude, I only post when I'm bored. There aren't very many topics I can honestly say I really care about. I can talk about anything, that doesn't mean I care about it. And Gil has plenty of free time at work to get bored and post on Theoryland with. That doesn't mean she really deeply cares about what she's posting.

[Sei'taer]

~winces~ Ouch, Taer... Did you have to go with THAT color? Interesting email, though. I'm can't wait to see the answer. Even if you are an internet stalker.



Sorry, I didn't realize how bad that color was for reading. I fixed it now....lemme get back to my stalking.

[StrangePackage]

Just wondering- are you all the kind of hypocrites that take oaths?

[Sei'taer]

Just wondering- are you all the kind of hypocrites that take oaths?

I don't take oaths...they get you in trouble. I will take a double dog nipple twister needle in my eye dare on occasion though, unless I can get away with a triple dog nipple twister needle in your eye superwedgie dare back.

[tanaww]

Bravo Bratticus! I was thinking "Big Bang Theory" as I read this thread too!

Great Minds ;)

[Terez]

Terez, the original topic is never conservation, so bringing it up is not sticking to the topic.
This argument is ridiculous, since we're not in any way sticklers for staying on topic at Theoryland. If you have something to say that's related to a topic, no one's going to stop you, and no one's going to bitch that you aren't sticking to the topic (ESPECIALLY when your comments are related to the original topic).

Gil doesn't like to hijack
That bullshit. Everyone hijacks, and no one cares.

And since when does posting about something really add up to caring?
When you do it regularly, and even go so far as to get emotional about it...

[Sinistrum]

When you do it regularly, and even go so far as to get emotional about it...

Her emotional reactions in threads about global warming or pretty much every other thread have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It does, however, have something to do with the conduct and attitudes of the other people participating in them.

That bullshit. Everyone hijacks, and no one cares.

So if everyone else is doing it then Gilshalos must be doing it to? The void created by that leap in logic is astounding.

[Terez]

Her emotional reactions in threads about global warming or pretty much every other thread have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
lol...if it wasn't important to her, then she could just drop it. But she continues to argue, so obviously it's important to her.

It does, however, have something to do with the conduct and attitudes of the other people participating in them.
Well, that goes both ways. :rolleyes:

So if everyone else is doing it then Gilshalos must be doing it to? The void created by that leap in logic is astounding.
The point is that the "I must comment on this topic repeatedly and with passion because I have something to say that's related to the topic but I don't want to hijack" argument is bullshit. No one cares about hijacking, and no one forces anyone to argue about anything.

[Birgitte]

Terez, it's really not bullshit. It's just basic human complexities (hehe... basic complexities.. err... anyways). She replies first because she cares about conservation. She mentions her opinion on the original topic because some people really do care and she happens to be one of them (I am too, incidently. I don't like posting on threads and completely ignoring the original poster's point, especially when they're asking for serious discussion on it. I consider it rude.). She replies passionately to people because a whole lot of people here post in a tone that really doesn't belong in any sort of civil discussion. And basic human pride is the only thing forcing her to respond. That and frustration. It's just human nature to respond in kind. And she's human. I think. I'm not really willing to test that, though.

Speaking of staying on topic, Taer, thanks for changing the font. My eyes rest easier now. And how long do you think it'll be before you get a reply?

And Mama, that fight was my first thought when I read the title of the thread. lol (Well, technically, it was Sheldon trying to kill Leonard with his mind, but... same difference. It happens in the fight.)

[Sei'taer]

Speaking of staying on topic, Taer, thanks for changing the font. My eyes rest easier now. And how long do you think it'll be before you get a reply?


Dunno. Sometimes he sends it back in a few hours. He has taken as long as a week though. Patience Grasshopper.

[Birgitte]

Bah! Patience! (Yeah, I'm not exactly good at being patient...)

[Terez]

Terez, it's really not bullshit. It's just basic human complexities (hehe... basic complexities.. err... anyways). She replies first because she cares about conservation. She mentions her opinion on the original topic because some people really do care and she happens to be one of them (I am too, incidently. I don't like posting on threads and completely ignoring the original poster's point, especially when they're asking for serious discussion on it. I consider it rude.). That's still a bullshit argument, because saying that you think people should conserve no matter whether global warming is real or caused by humans is ON TOPIC.

Also, this thread (http://theoryland.yuku.com/topic/6072/t/So-its-snowing-in-El-Paso.html?page=1) was the first climate change discussion I recall participating in at Theoryland. The original topic was about snow. Yet, Gil felt the need to preach about how arrogant we are for assuming that humans can affect global climate. :rolleyes: It's a bullshit argument in the first place, but even the smidgen of illusory worth in the "I don't want to hijack" argument evaporates for that thread...

She replies passionately to people because a whole lot of people here post in a tone that really doesn't belong in any sort of civil discussion. Also bullshit, first because her tone is one of the worst on the forum, second because if she's got an issue with someone's tone then she can address that without going all into her feelings about how global warming could not possibly be caused by humans. And in the above thread, notice who was the first to take an obnoxious tone...this is where it got stupid:

Well perhaps because some people like me feel that Bush isn't doing anything to stop global warming??? So... Bush controls the weather and the climate entirely? Wow. wtf. As if that is anything close to what Isa said. :rolleyes: Despite the utter stupidity of that comment, however, the next post was pretty civil:
Of course not. But he is in a position of leadership in a country with the potential to do a great deal about it, and he has squandered that opportunity. He and others have half the country convinced that global warming is a myth. It gets stupid again with the next post, which I'll skip because it's largely irrelevant. The next post was Gil's again:
You know, at the risk of opening a gigantic can of worms, I'm going to say this. I find it hysterically amusing that there are people who are arrogant enough to presume that humans are singlehandedly altering the entire climate of the earth. I admit, we're not helping, but we're the ones who'll suffer for that, not the planet.

The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. Ask any geologist/Paleontologist/meteorologist. We only have recorded temps for 200 years in most of the world (some are not even from that long ago). Some do go back longer, true, that's why the Middle Ages was called The Little Ice Age. (Cooler temps possibly contributed to the spread of the Black Plague.) We are polluting. Yes. However, are we responsible for this warming trend? Unless temperatures shot up drastically the minute the first factories spewed soot into the air, I doubt it. Even if the damage is cumulative, there should have been some signs sooner. After all, the Industrial Revolution started roughly 400 years ago in parts of Europe (not the US, mind you, Europe).

Are we messing with ecosystems we don't understand? Yes. Are we destroying them? Possibly. As rats and pigeons and song birds and cockroaches have proven animals CAN and will co-exist with humans and even depend on them.

Is any of this a reason to go out and buy an H3 Urban Assault Vehicle, just to drive a block? Leave all the lights on in your house when you're not using them? Just generally be wasteful and irresponsible? Hell no! Because whether we're responsible or not, Global Warming is happening and it will effect us. The Earth will continue along fine without us. But to presume we're the sole cause of the climate fluctuations is as arrogant as to assume we're not causing any problems at all. And if the climate is changing, we're going to need what resources we can find to keep ourselves going until the Earth cycles back to a climate that we can survive in easier.

So, turn off the water while you brush your teeth. Make sure your toilet isn't running unneccessarily. Drive a smaller car. Or if you must have a large car, try to make it so that that's the only one you have. Plant trees. Conserve fossil fuels. Don't turn the A/C on high in the summer. Elect environmentally conservative Congressional representatives. But don't for one minute think humans (and especially Americans) are totally responsible for the fact that there's no snow in New England this year or that Colorado had two record blizzards in a week.

Oh, and FYI, until I started educating myself, I was a rabid environmentalist. I would have been just a peeved at Bush as the rest of you. But frankly, I'm no longer quite that arrogant to assume it's all our fault any more. In one fell swoop, Gil insults at least half the board as being uneducated, not to mention throwing up several straw men (for instance, who ever said that humans were singlehandedly responsible for climate change?) Of course, it got a lot worse from there.

Now tell me...what does all that have to do with snow in El Paso? Looks like Gil violated her standards....

And basic human pride is the only thing forcing her to respond. That and frustration. It's just human nature to respond in kind. And she's human. I think. I'm not really willing to test that, though. It's also human nature to ignore arguments that we don't really care about. There are tons of threads that I never post in, because I just don't give a shit. There are tons of threads that I post in, only to say what I give a shit about, ignoring the rest.

[Marie Curie 7]

I'm at a conference, so I haven't had much time to respond to this thread, but I wanted to make a few comments...

(1) If this guy (Monckton) is really trying to claim that his article was peer reviewed, then he is totally clueless about how scientific peer review works. All that happened with Monckton's article is that the editor of the newsletter in which it was published made suggestions about it in order to improve the readability. That is absolutely not scientific peer review.

Check out the press release (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html) that the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI), of which Monckton is a "member", made regarding the article. Here's the first part of it:

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
Written by Robert Ferguson
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

There are two errors in the first sentence alone: the paper was NOT peer reviewed and Physics and Society is NOT a "learned journal" - it's a freaking newsletter of the society.

(2) The press release by Monckton/SPPI is probably one of the reasons that APS felt the need to post a disclaimer that Monckton's article was not peer reviewed on their web site for the newsletter. In addition, a number of climate-change-related blogs started stating that APS had reversed their position on global warming - as if Monckton's paper was some sort of official retraction about AGW from the APS. For example (http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm):

Blog: Science
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

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."

Wtf? When did APS say anything like they had reversed their position regarding climate change? If you read the statement at the opening of the online Physics & Society newsletter (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm), this is what it says:

Physics & Society: July 2008

The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non-peer-reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.

The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, "There is 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" does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.

"Non-peer-reviewed": pretty clear statement, that - Monckton was invited to write an article on the con side of AGW; the other authors in that same issue - Hafemeister and Schwartz - were invited to write on the pro side. Neither article was peer reviewed.

(3) Gil asks in a previous post if anyone has checked his math - yes, lots of people have checked his math and his logic, and there are errors of those types as well as other factual errors throughout his article. Can any of you find any of them, of any type? I'll start - with a pretty simple factual error. From the Monckton article (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm):

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in "global warming"; . . . nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons. . .

I guess that Monckton forgot about the 2005 hurricane season, which was the most active season on record.

(4) Sei'taer, you say you found the article "informative" - in what way? Did you also read the complementary article by Hafemeister and Schwartz?

(5) Sei'taer, you say:

4. I want to see who has the last word. The longer it goes, the funnier it is...The M of B has a reputation for not giving in easily.

5. It seems that the physics world is gathering up behind both men, and I want to see if there is an all out nerd war between the 2 factions. Short sleeves and ties, red pens and pocket protectors, thick glasses flyin'...it should be great!

I don't really see the physics world "gathering" behind Monckton. And I don't particularly see that this is a "nerd war" in the making - Monckton distorted the whole purpose of the newsletter forum, and APS was forced to respond to clarify that their position had not changed.

[Sinistrum]

I see revisionist history is becoming a hobby of yours Terez. I can't say I'm surprised you'd choose to leave out the parts that are unfriendly to your argument. Ignoring inconvenient facts is another hobby of yours too.

First off, it wasn't Gilshalos post that changed the topic to global warming. It was your beloved Callendor that opened that can of worms.

Terez said: What the hell is wrong with the world?

Callendor said: It's called climate change, or less specifically global warming.

Secondly it wasn't Gilshalos who set the negative tone to the thread or delved it into the realm of politics. It was Callendor's usual offputting hubris, Gonzo's anti-american comments, and your anti-religious one in response.

Gonzo says: Gonzo has a vision of Bush leading a circle of thirteen in an attempt to stop Global Warming. I wonder what side effects that would have.

Naz says: I'm having hard time visioning that. Where would he lead them to do it?

Gonzo responds: It would of course be similar to the scene where Elayne and her gaggle of girls fixed the weather. But in this case instead of having Nynaeve you would have Cheney.

I haven't worked out what they would use in place of the Bowl Of The Winds, yet.


Terez says: The Bible, duh.

The above is the context in which Isabel then chimmed in, at which point the post from Gilshalos that you copied was in response to the entire negative turn to the thread. But of course none of that is convenient to your attempt to demonize her and once again play the victim. This "boo hoo I'm being picked" on routine is really starting to wear thin. As for this...

Also bullshit, first because her tone is one of the worst on the forum,

Funny, but you and the relative few people here who you call friends are the ONLY ones who have a problem with it. The vast majority of the rest of the board seems to have absolutely no issue with her tone. On the same token, as the last thread we "conversed" about this issue indicated, a lot more people seem to have a problem with your tone and attitude. I wonder why that is?

[Terez]

I see revisionist history is becoming a hobby of yours Terez. I can't say I'm surprised you'd choose to leave out the parts that are unfriendly to your argument. I linked the thread, so I didn't leave anything out.

First off, it wasn't Gilshalos post that changed the topic to global warming. I didn't say she did. Just that her rant had nothing to do with the original topic. As a matter of fact, it should have been clear from the quotes I posted (including my own) that she didn't.

Secondly it wasn't Gilshalos who set the negative tone to the thread or delved it into the realm of politics. It was Callendor's usual offputting hubris, Gonzo's anti-american comments, and your anti-religious one in response. Callandor hadn't said the slightest thing offputting at that point. And me and Gonzo were making jokes, along with everyone else. The mood was rather lighthearted until Gil stepped in with her rant. :)

Also, I really don't give a shit what the rest of the forum thinks of Gil, or me. The truth is that she's one of the most arrogant posters on the boards, and regularly makes unnecessary attacks. Just like she did in the beginning of this here thread, trying to label half the board as hypocrites, out of the blue, and with no good reason. I'm sure she thinks she's a nice person, but she isn't. She also frequently makes dishonest statements, and this is yet another example of that as well...

[Sei'taer]

(4) Sei'taer, you say you found the article "informative" - in what way? Did you also read the complementary article by Hafemeister and Schwartz?

(5) Sei'taer, you say:


I don't really see the physics world "gathering" behind Monckton. And I don't particularly see that this is a "nerd war" in the making - Monckton distorted the whole purpose of the newsletter forum, and APS was forced to respond to clarify that their position had not changed.


1. (4) In that it is opening doors to debate on a problem that many people believe is true and many people don't believe is true. Yes, I did read the complimentary articles, but they weren't stirring the shitpot with a big oar. The article I linked to was the cause. There were also no back and forth emails between Hafemeister and Schwartz and the president of the APS, so I saw no reason to bring that into the discussion because I was not pointing to any of those things as being funny.

2. (5) I read this (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403), and then concluded there was/is a split, based on this statement:

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."


Notice, it says many, not all. That meant to me that there is a part of the APS that doesn't believe it...now whether or not they are getting behind Monckton is another thing altogether...They are gathering one way or another, but I thought that making a post about the war of nerds would be far funnier if you had 2 generals.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Sinistrum, Birgitte, thanks for defending me. But it's obvious Terez believes I'm a morally bankrupt hypocrite, hell-bent on inciting flamewars or something.

Just let it lie. I've put Terez on my ignore list since I can't seem to discuss anything without being called a hypocrite.



Oh, and who'd a thought SINISTRUM would be defending me?

[Terez]

Oh, and who'd a thought SINISTRUM would be defending me?
I'd be amazed if anyone was surprised about that...

[Gilshalos Sedai]

So sue me, I gave into temptation and hit "view posts"

Apparently, your panties are in a bunch over this phrase:

Bryan and I hate the hypocrisy of the "greenies," we get labelled neo-cons or whatever.

I was actually talking about the political talking heads and elected officials we don't agree with. Al Gore, et al. Unless Al Gore is a close personal pal of yours, I don't see how this was personally insulting to you. If you found it offensive, I apologize and will attempt to be more clear with my insults in the future.

Now let it lie, Sini and B.

[yks 6nnetu hing]

was wondering when this fight would continue... sooner than I expected, actually...

I do realize that I'm barely a lurker now and probably my word has very little weight in this but... look at Terez accusing Gil of hijackig the thread, changing the topic of the thread from global warming to hijacking/insults... er... hypocricy, ANYONE???

also, Gil is one of the warmest people on this board. You don't have to be fuzzy-cuddly non-confrontational all the time, you know, to be considered a good human being. You on the other hand. Let's just say that I've shown my face at TL about 10 times - probably less - in the past 4 months and you've managed to not exactly insult... let's say upset me twice in those 10 times. Now, I'm willing to take that as "I don't know her well enough, maybe she meant it jokingly, benefit of the doubt and all that" but it looks like you're always yelling at someone for some imaginary insult (funnily enough, accusing them of getting imaginarily upset at your innocent remarks). Please tell me, are you indeed the best person to accuse others of hypocricy? I mean, of course, everyone is to some extent hypocritical but who are YOU to get on a high horse on this parti?

[Terez]

I apologize and will attempt to be more clear with my insults in the future.
Apology accepted, though I still don't understand why you go on about the subject of anthropogenic climate change so much if you don't care about it, as you claim.

[Terez]

look at Terez accusing Gil of hijackig the thread
If you had actually read this thread, you would know that I accused her of no such thing.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Terez, I was actually talking to Snow and Brita on a tangent but still trying to stay on topic.

So, can we stop this bullshit and go back to waiting for Monckton's response?

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Randomness:

Interested to see the responses 'taer

I like the eco grocery bags, I have 6 of them.

I love Big Bang. It gives personality to nerds. Hoorah!

Personally, I started turning off the running water during toothbrush time in the mid 70's. I distinctly recall two thoughts occuring in my young nerdy mind as I scrubbed with my Crest.
1. The Dune universe could be OURS
2. STOP WASTING WATER!!!!

Neither thought had anything (directly) to do with scientists, the temperature of the earth or hairspray causing a big 'ol hole in the ozone. It was a ten year old realizing she was wasting something and clueing in to the fact that not everything lasts forever. A life moment as it were.

[GonzoTheGreat]

So, can we stop this bullshit and go back to waiting for Monckton's response?
Alternatively, you can continue the catfight until there's something better to watch.
1. The Dune universe could be OURS
Of course, our planet is more like Caladan than like Arrakis. But I'm sure that doesn't diminish your argument any.

[Brita]

Of course, our planet is more like Caladan than like Arrakis. But I'm sure that doesn't diminish your argument any.

LOL! Congratulations Gonzo- you have proven yourself more clever than the thoughts of a 10 year old :p

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Alternatively, you can continue the catfight until there's something better to watch.


You can go find some scantily clad blondes in bikinis and mud to fulfill that desire of yours, Gonzo. I think even Terez would agree with me on that. :P

[Sei'taer]

Personally, I started turning off the running water during toothbrush time in the mid 70's. I distinctly recall two thoughts occuring in my young nerdy mind as I scrubbed with my Crest.
1. The Dune universe could be OURS
2. STOP WASTING WATER!!!!

Neither thought had anything (directly) to do with scientists, the temperature of the earth or hairspray causing a big 'ol hole in the ozone. It was a ten year old realizing she was wasting something and clueing in to the fact that not everything lasts forever. A life moment as it were.


Brings back memories to me, SBC. I also turn off the water out of habit now. But my reasons were a lot different. When I was a kid our sink had a slow drain, so all the yuck would pile up in the sink when you brushed and Pop would bitch and blh blah blah. I found that if I turned off the water and spit strategically down the drain, I could get it all to wash away fairly easily. I did it for so long that it became habit. People in college used to tell me how good I was for saving water and in my mind I'm thinking...Oh yeah, I guess it does save water, never really thought of that. Anyway, I guess that just shows that most of my conservation stuff comes from being a lazyass.

[John Snow]

(*Snow goes into Andy Rooney mode*) conserving at home, getting all these messages about how it's up to the individual, then seeing all the office buildings or sports fields light up at night, or driving through, say, the San Joaquin Valley or the potato fields in Idaho and seeing all the water that takes.

There's certainly some validity to all of us individuals conserving together, but there's virtually nothing said or done about the huge amounts of waste by corporations.

[Brita]

Since we're sharing, I conserve water like a maniac because I grew up with a dug well that ran dry every February for at least 3 months. I take 5 min showers, always turn the water off when I brush, don't use sprinklers, catch rain water to water gardens and load the washing machine to the hilt. And we don't have supply issues now- it is just habit.

Some habits I broke though:

When I was a kid we would save bath water to flush toilets (if it's yellow it's mellow, if it's brown flush it down), melt snow on the woodstove to use as non-potable water and only wash dishes when there was enough to justify filling a sink for them (once a day usually).

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Not every corporation or skyscraper management company is like that, Snow. Good luck finding a lit skyscraper in downtown Houston at night (beyond the outlining lights that are supposed to remind the birds there's a building there). But then, we may be the oil capitol of the world, but we're also cheapskates. :)

I think, however, the parking garages do stay lit up for safety reasons.

Not sure how else you're going to irrigate a potato field, though, Snow.

[Terez]

You can go find some scantily clad blondes in bikinis and mud to fulfill that desire of yours, Gonzo. I think even Terez would agree with me on that. :P Wouldn't be the first time in this thread. I think they have sim games where you can pit Britney Spears against her equally pathetic friends. He'd probably like that. :)

As far as conservation goes...my dad is thoroughly Republican, thinks that global warming is a myth (not just caused by natural stuff, but a myth altogether, vast left-wing conspiracy and all) but he's probably one of the biggest conservationists I know, just because he's cheap. He has always lighted the house with flourescent, for example. It's hot in the house in the summer, and....well, it's hot in the winter too, because dad is cold-natured, but he says gas is cheaper than electricity. :) He makes us save our bathwater so that he can use it to bathe, and when my stepsisters were young, he made them do it too. If I go to get some milk out of the fridge and it's rotten, I put it back in the fridge, because it's never wise to throw away ANYTHING in his house. I can't imagine what he would do with rotten milk but it wouldn't surprise me if I got bitched at for tossing it...

[Frenzy]

True sustainable conservation is all about saving our selves and our chosen lifestyle. any bunnies saved along the way are inconsequential.

[Terez]

I think I killed a bunny last night. It ran out in front of me. :(

[Crispin's Crispian]

What about kittens? I don't have to save kittens, do I?

[Sinistrum]

It's a good thing lizards don't need saving. Whenever we start having our habitats encroached upon we just send Godzilla to go stomp on a city or two to return the favor. :p

[tworiverswoman]

I hate it when a thread goes to page 2 and I don't notice...

I posted something about something that ended (more or less) on page one. Oh,well.

You can carry conservation too far. My husband (who shall remain nameless) has to be reminded to not conserve so much water that I get angry when I get home from work because the bathroom STINKS! He has asthma, sinusitis and presently a cold on top, so he has no sense of smell whatever. Gah!

[Terez]

My husband (who shall remain nameless) Errrrrrrrrrn, erm, why? :D

[GonzoTheGreat]

Errrrrrrrrrn, erm, why?
Because Tru has forgotten, and now would be too embarrassed if she had to ask.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

LMAO....

Gonzo, stop being so funny. You're making it difficult to be irritated with you when you deserve it.

[Realnow]

Ahem. Me.

But Gilshalos' point is also well-taken. Regardless of what one thinks about the cause of global warming, doing the best one can to conserve, etc, is a very rational course of action. Again, see Pascal's Dilemma (is that what it's called? Doesn't sound quite right....)

Pascal had a Wager, not a dilemma =P. And the point of it was that you may as well "wager" that God exists, because if your right the benefits are enormous (in the theory), but if your wrong you are no worse off than before.

And about that recycling bit, I don't really care about global warming personally; but I can still see that obviously Gilshalo's point is correct. No matter where you stand on the global warming matter (unless your stance is that you hate the environment and support global warming =P)

[Crispin's Crispian]

Pascal had a Wager, not a dilemma =P. And the point of it was that you may as well "wager" that God exists, because if your right the benefits are enormous (in the theory), but if your wrong you are no worse off than before.

Too bad the God of the Bible doesn't think like that. I'm not sure that wagering on his existence is good enough.

[Marie Curie 7]

1. (4) In that it is opening doors to debate on a problem that many people believe is true and many people don't believe is true. Yes, I did read the complimentary articles, but they weren't stirring the shitpot with a big oar. The article I linked to was the cause. There were also no back and forth emails between Hafemeister and Schwartz and the president of the APS, so I saw no reason to bring that into the discussion because I was not pointing to any of those things as being funny.

Well, you said you found Monckton's paper "to be informative" - so I assumed that there was something in the article itself that you thought was good or whatever, and not just the "controversy" that it started. The problem is, though, that the article by Monckton is not "opening doors to debate" as you suggest - and not because there aren't potential interesting questions to ask about AGW - but rather because Monckton (and the Institute where he is "Chief Policy Advisor" (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html)) deliberately falsified information about the paper, its peer review status, and the type of "journal" in which it had been published. If Monckton had really wanted a serious discussion of the issue, he wouldn't have blown its importance so totally out of proportion and spewed his press release full of crap (linked in my previous post, but here (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html) it is again) to anyone gullible enough to print it. Maybe you should ask in your emails to him why, if his paper is so important and disproves AGW, he hasn't sent it to a real scientific journal for actual peer review - I mean really, such an important paper ought to be worthy of publication in a prestigious journal like Nature or Science.

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."

Notice, it says many, not all. That meant to me that there is a part of the APS that doesn't believe it...now whether or not they are getting behind Monckton is another thing altogether...They are gathering one way or another, but I thought that making a post about the war of nerds would be far funnier if you had 2 generals.

Yes, I also linked that statement in my previous post from the same blog that you linked above, in case you hadn't noticed. The problem is that the statement you read on that blog and quoted above is bogus. I'm not saying that there aren't some APS members who are AGW skeptics - but it is definitely bogus that the APS "has reversed its stance on climate change". Directly from the APS web site (http://www.aps.org/):

Climate Change

APS Position Unchanged

APS reaffirms its 2007 position on climate change. An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society (FPS), with the notice that, "All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee." This newsletter is not a journal of APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Here's their actual policy statement on climate change (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm), by the way:

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.

By the way, I have seen physicists (and chemists) get into big arguments over stuff, and yeah, it can be pretty amusing how into it they (we) get. And sometimes the most amusing disagreements are over what sometimes seem to be really trivial things - like the structure of CH5+ (who knew anybody cared?). But many of those sorts of arguments take place within the peer-reviewed literature, or at conferences where their published work is being presented. I heard a famous quantum chemist give a talk one time essentially calling the application of density functional theory to chemical problems "crap" to an audience full of supporters of the theory - needless to say, the discussion and questions after the talk were pretty heated.

You know, it seems like the Forum on Physics and Society of the APS really was trying to get an open discussion going on climate change, but Monckton ruined it by his false statements about APS reversing its position and whining about peer review. Because now, regardless of whether his article had any validity or not, he's tainted it with his ridiculous approach. And in my opinion, this isn't one of those times where the "disagreement" is amusing, because in this case, it's not about both sides presenting their scientific data and conclusions and arguing about them. It might have been that type of discussion if FPS had been able to actually get a scientific discussion going, but in this case, one side has simply caused a stink by making up stuff.

[Sei'taer]

Cool...I'll keep laughing about it...cuz I think the image is rather funny.

I work around engineers and architects all day and I get to see those type of nerd wars on a regular basis (anyone who has ever seen an engineer call an architect an idiotic wannabe engineer knows what I am talking about. There is no love lost between those 2 professions).

As far as the APS is concerned, my guess would be that they are about as split as everyone else on GW. Can I back that up? Nope. Does it matter? Nope.

[Marie Curie 7]

Cool...I'll keep laughing about it...cuz I think the image is rather funny.

Cool....so you really didn't have anything of substance to say about Monckton's article? You were just happy about all the media crap that he was able to stir up, huh? And exactly what "image" do you think is rather funny? Is it the one where Monckton is making an ass of himself in front of essentially the entire scientific community? 'Cause that's the one that I think is rather funny.

I work around engineers and architects all day and I get to see those type of nerd wars on a regular basis (anyone who has ever seen an engineer call an architect an idiotic wannabe engineer knows what I am talking about. There is no love lost between those 2 professions). My Uncle is a chemist, and my cousin is a chemical engineer and you ought to hear the 2 of them fight over GW.

Wow, that's really great...I work around chemists and physicists every day, too, and there is no love lost between those two professions, either. And you really wouldn't believe the agreement that they all have over AGW. :)

As far as the APS is concerned, my guess would be that they are about as split as everyone else on GW. Can I back that up? Nope. Does it matter? Nope.

~shrug~ I really doubt that APS is split in the way that you suggest. From a recent interview (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/07/now-will-you-publish-my-paper-showing.html?DCMP=ILC-rhts&nsref=ts10_bar) with one of the co-editors of the Physics and Society newsletter:

Yet, in hindsight, Saperstein admits that the newsletter might have been better off focusing on the impacts of climate change, not the causes. He also regrets the statement at the front of the newsletter which reads "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion".

"It is clear that we made one error in my colleague's introduction. In retrospect, the word 'considerable' should have been dropped."

Indeed. It's an error which may cost Saperstein and his co-editor their positions. They have called on the society to give them a vote of confidence or non-confidence.

Oh, and you never did answer my queries about Monckton's paper - was there actually something in it that you found informative? I'll add some other questions - maybe you'll be able to answer them, if you can't answer that. (1) Do you think that Monckton's paper was peer reviewed? (2) Do you think that Monckton has provided mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis", as his press release indicates? (3) Do you have any issues with this particular statement from TVMOB's paper (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm)?

Here as elsewhere the IPCC assigns a 90% confidence interval to "very likely", rather than the customary 95% (two standard deviations). There is no good statistical basis for any such quantification, for the object to which it is applied is, in the formal sense, chaotic. The climate is "a complex, non-linear, chaotic object" that defies long-run prediction of its future states (IPCC, 2001), unless the initial state of its millions of variables is known to a precision that is in practice unattainable, as Lorenz (1963; and see Giorgi, 2005) concluded in the celebrated paper that founded chaos theory –

"Prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather forecasting would seem to be non-existent".

There are tons more questions, but I'll stop for now.

[Sei'taer]

Cool....so you really didn't have anything of substance to say about Monckton's article? You were just happy about all the media crap that he was able to stir up, huh? And exactly what "image" do you think is rather funny? Is it the one where Monckton is making an ass of himself in front of essentially the entire scientific community? 'Cause that's the one that I think is rather funny. .

I did. I thought it was a great article. I thought the opposing articles were great too



Wow, that's really great...I work around chemists and physicists every day, too, and there is no love lost between those two professions, either. And you really wouldn't believe the agreement that they all have over AGW. :) .

OK, so anecdotally, engineers and architects I know think it's crap...but there are those who believe in it, so I would say that they are split and by that reasoning say most professions probably are, to one degree or another.






Oh, and you never did answer my queries about Monckton's paper - was there actually something in it that you found informative? I'll add some other questions - maybe you'll be able to answer them, if you can't answer that. (1) Do you think that Monckton's paper was peer reviewed? (2) Do you think that Monckton has provided mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis", as his press release indicates? (3) Do you have any issues with this particular statement from TVMOB's paper (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm)? .

Yes, no, doesn't appear to have been, I couldn't begin to tell you and I'm really not that concerned about it either way, lemme go over it. I'm not a physicist or a chemist so it takes me time to check.


There are tons more questions, but I'll stop for now.

thats fine, you can try to bait me all you want. I still think its hilarious.

[Marie Curie 7]

Cool....so you really didn't have anything of substance to say about Monckton's article? You were just happy about all the media crap that he was able to stir up, huh? And exactly what "image" do you think is rather funny? Is it the one where Monckton is making an ass of himself in front of essentially the entire scientific community? 'Cause that's the one that I think is rather funny.

I did. I thought it was a great article. I thought the opposing articles were great too

FYI, there was only one opposing article. The FPS requested one article on the con side (Monckton's) and one on the pro side of AGW (the article by Hafemeister and Schwartz) - see the table of contents (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm) below:


Physics & Society: July 2008
Volume 37, Number 3

In this Issue:

Editor's Comments
Jeffrey Marque, Alvin Saperstein

News of the Forum
Message from the New Chair, Message from the Former Chair, Future Meetings

Articles
A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
By David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
By Christopher Monckton


Wow, that's really great...I work around chemists and physicists every day, too, and there is no love lost between those two professions, either. And you really wouldn't believe the agreement that they all have over AGW.

OK, so anecdotally, engineers and architects I know think it's crap...but there are those who believe in it, so I would say that they are split and by that reasoning say most professions probably are, to one degree or another.

~shrug~ My department currently consists of 20 chemistry faculty - all are supporters of AGW. The Physics Department at my institution consists of 13 faculty - all but one are AGW supporters. So that's about 97% support in the physical sciences - and while I can't claim that's a statistical sample, I would bet it's a pretty reasonable estimate of the type of support in those fields in general.


Oh, and you never did answer my queries about Monckton's paper - was there actually something in it that you found informative? I'll add some other questions - maybe you'll be able to answer them, if you can't answer that. (1) Do you think that Monckton's paper was peer reviewed? (2) Do you think that Monckton has provided mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis", as his press release indicates? (3) Do you have any issues with this particular statement from TVMOB's paper?

Yes, no, doesn't appear to have been, I couldn't begin to tell you and I'm really not that concerned about it either way, lemme go over it. I'm not a physicist or a chemist so it takes me time to check.

I assume that you answered these in order, so that your answer to (1) is yes, you believe that Monckton's article was peer reviewed. Sorry, I have to say that there is really no question about this - Monckton's paper was absolutely not peer reviewed, according to the usual procedures of scientific peer review.

The way that peer review works is as follows: You submit your manuscript to an editor of the journal in which you would like to have your work published. That editor selects, based upon the subfield of science of the manuscript, other scientists in the field to serve as reviewers (note that the editor is not one of these reviewers). The author may include a list of names of potential reviewers along with the submission of the manuscript, but the editor is in no way obligated to use any of those potential reviewers. The reviews are anonymous; that is, the names of the reviewers are not revealed to the author. The reviewers read the manuscript and make recommendations to the editor about whether or not the manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal. The reviewers generally include comments about whether revisions to the manuscript are necessary with respect to the scientific content and readability of the manuscript. The editor then makes a decision about whether or not to accept the manuscript for publication on the basis of the reviewers' recommendations. If you would like to verify that this is how scientific peer review works, here's the link to the reviewing procedures for Physical Review B (http://prb.aps.org/info/polprocb.html), one of the journals published by APS.

Now, if you look again at the press release about Monckton's article, (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html) you see that the article was supposedly published in a "learned journal" of the APS, and was (according to him) "peer reviewed":


Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
Written by Robert Ferguson
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

So first, here is a list of all the journals published by APS (http://publish.aps.org/about) from their web site:


Physical Review Letters
Reviews of Modern Physics
Physical Review A
Physical Review B
Physical Review C
Physical Review D
Physical Review E
Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research
Physical Review Online Archive
Annual Index
Physical Review Focus
Virtual Journals in Science and Technology

Unfortunately, I don't see Physics and Society listed, so clearly APS must not consider it a "learned journal" and Monckton's press release is incorrect in that regard.

Where does Physics and Society show up on the APS web site? Under "Unit Newsletters" (http://www.aps.org/publications/other.cfm). Does the unit newsletter for the Forum on Physics and Society publish peer-reviewed articles? NO (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm).


The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.

So Monckton is clearly wrong in the notion that his article was peer reviewed, too. He can say all he wants about the editor making comments on the article or "reviewing" it, but that is not peer review according to the procedures of APS (as described and linked above), so it is absolutely not a peer reviewed article - end of story.


Oh, and you never did answer my queries about Monckton's paper - was there actually something in it that you found informative? I'll add some other questions - maybe you'll be able to answer them, if you can't answer that. (1) Do you think that Monckton's paper was peer reviewed? (2) Do you think that Monckton has provided mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis", as his press release indicates? (3) Do you have any issues with this particular statement from TVMOB's paper?

Yes, no, doesn't appear to have been, I couldn't begin to tell you and I'm really not that concerned about it either way, lemme go over it. I'm not a physicist or a chemist so it takes me time to check.

I'm not sure whether your answer to (2) was supposed to be "no" or "doesn't appear to have been" or some combination thereof, so I'll skip that for now and move on to (3). The statement I was asking about from Monckton's paper is as follows:


Here as elsewhere the IPCC assigns a 90% confidence interval to "very likely", rather than the customary 95% (two standard deviations). There is no good statistical basis for any such quantification, for the object to which it is applied is, in the formal sense, chaotic. The climate is "a complex, non-linear, chaotic object" that defies long-run prediction of its future states (IPCC, 2001), unless the initial state of its millions of variables is known to a precision that is in practice unattainable, as Lorenz (1963; and see Giorgi, 2005) concluded in the celebrated paper that founded chaos theory –

"Prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather forecasting would seem to be non-existent".

I wasn't really asking you to dig in to the real specific details of the science of this statement, but rather to think about the logic of it. Monckton is essentially saying that because climate is a chaotic system it's not predictable and therefore the IPCC is crazy if it thinks that 90% confidence intervals can be assigned to predictions regarding such a system. So if you agree that's what Monckton is saying, then don't you have to wonder why he doesn't stop with that conclusion? I mean, if Monckton really thinks that climate is not predictable, then why does he continue on in the paper and try to make his own predictions of climate based on his "corrections" to the errors he supposedly found in the IPCC model?

Beyond that logical inconsistency, the issue with the statement about the climate being a chaotic system is that what Lorenz's quote tells us is that we are not able to predict, for example, what the temperature will be in Boston on July 26, 2020. But we're not trying to forecast the weather over a long time period - we're trying to predict the average global behavior of the climate, which is a very different thing. I've made some very detailed posts about this in the past, and I'm not going to replicate them here. So, if you really want to understand something about predictability in chaotic systems, you can read the posts about it in this thread (http://theoryland.yuku.com/topic/5768).


There are tons more questions, but I'll stop for now.

thats fine, you can try to bait me all you want. I still think its hilarious.

~shrug~ You can consider it to be baiting if you want, but my purpose was to try to understand things like why you (and probably other people, too, but you were the one who started this thread) think what you do about scientific peer review and so on. And I've tried to explain the specific details of these things so that perhaps it's more clear to you just how the scientific community functions in this regard - for example, by providing the specific criteria that are required for an article to be considered peer reviewed.

[Sei'taer]

I assume that you answered these in order, so that your answer to (1) is yes, you believe that Monckton's article was peer reviewed. Sorry, I have to say that there is really no question about this - Monckton's paper was absolutely not peer reviewed, according to the usual procedures of scientific peer review.

Yes I did answer them in order. There were 3 numbered questions and one unnumbered. The unnumbered was the first. I can fix it real quick.

Oh, and you never did answer my queries about Monckton's paper - (1a)was there actually something in it that you found informative? I'll add some other questions - maybe you'll be able to answer them, if you can't answer that. (1) Do you think that Monckton's paper was peer reviewed? (2) Do you think that Monckton has provided mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis", as his press release indicates? (3) Do you have any issues with this particular statement from TVMOB's paper?

FYI, there was only one opposing article. The FPS requested one article on the con side (Monckton's) and one on the pro side of AGW (the article by Hafemeister and Schwartz) - see the table of contents below:

My bad, I wrote it incorrectly...I knew there was only one article. I think when I wrote it I was thinking of the 2 writers ~shrug~ Not really sure.

Wow, that's really great...I work around chemists and physicists every day, too, and there is no love lost between those two professions, either. And you really wouldn't believe the agreement that they all have over AGW.

My chemist cousin is married to a physicist. She doesn't believe in it, I'm not sure about his views. On a side note, I sent this article to them and they were going thru the math on it. I gave them the link to this discussion...maybe they'll post here on it. My cousin was enjoying (how the hell she could enjoy it is beyond me...math is too much work) working thru all of it and many of the articles you posted as well. I also had to ask her what this was:

And sometimes the most amusing disagreements are over what sometimes seem to be really trivial things - like the structure of CH5+ (who knew anybody cared?)

She explained it, but it was like listening to Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller...just blew right in one ear and out the other. It was a tad over my head. About all I got out of it was that it was some type of non rotating energy field thingy...or some such...like I said, way over my head.

why you (and probably other people, too, but you were the one who started this thread) think what you do about scientific peer review and so on

I never said anything about peer review. I know what peer review is. I thought it was funny that it sounded like a true blue nerd war. That was my whole point. I'm actually amazed the Terez got that out of it, and Birgitte, and I think even Sini and Snow and Gil did...but you didn't. Then, since I have basically asked questions of Monckton before, I decided to send him an email and ask him if he took the sunspots into account, as Gonzo asked, and what we should do about the dilemma that Snow posted and how he handled discussion about his not being a physicist...all questions that have a lot of validity, if you ask me. I didn't think it was at all out of the way because I do send emails to Bob Costas, Billy Crystal, Glenn Beck, and several others. As Gil said, I'm an internet stalker.

Would you mind taking a look at the gas thing that Camel posted. I'm going to ask a question over there and it has to do with chemistry (I think) and you may be the only one here who can answer it.

[Terez]

It's not a nerd war - it's just a poser stirring up a bunch of retarded shit. I'm sure there are a few dissenters in the APS, but I doubt any of them would be willing to back Monckton after he was stupid enough to claim his paper was peer-reviewed...