Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

Compared to what and based on what? The problem is comparing extremely accurate satellite based temperatures to manual temperature readings that get less and less reliable. It appears that all these “gains”: were wiped out in one year:

showInitialOdiogoReadNowFrame (‘42049’, ‘10866’, 290, 0);
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_hadcrut.jpg
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile – the list goes on and on.

Way to completely ignore the fact that your source was just plain dishonest with it’s use of data and attempt a bit of distraction.

As to your new point, the data you link doesn’t disagree with NASA’s in any significant fashion. Here’s the list based on the HadCrut3 dataset:
1998,2005,2003,2002,2004,2006,2007,2001,1997,1995,1999,1990,2000,1991,1983,1987,1988,1994,1981, 1996.

And your claim about a century of cooling being wiped out in a year suggests you need to look up the word “average”. You might also want to see what the data for the past few months looks like. That blip doesn’t “wipe out” the cooling any more than the two much larger monthly cool blips in 1993 did. (1993 still ranked #23 in terms of yearly average). I also like the dishonest way in which that site picks the 20 year window to fortuitously bookend the window with an upward monthly blip on the front with a downward monthly blip at the end. You should also note that each of last 10 years contained in that 20 year plot was one of the 14 warmest on record.

Kids, there is no “consensus” just scientist grubbing for money…the goverment funds global warming research in the billions…so you give the government what it wants…but there are significant numbers of scientists out there that reject the idea of man made global warming.

Agrees. And, by the tone of the rhetoric coming from the “global warming” crowd, they know they are starting to lose their propaganda war. Why else would they equate “deniers” to war criminals and ask for their prosecution and decertification.

Without a doubt-anyone who disagrees with them is gultiy of “lies” or “distortions” or are “deniers”. The global warming myth is crumbling before their eyes. Tthey will never admit they were Wrong-they will instead find some other “crsis” to use to attempt to force their far left agenda on the country.

So instead of discussing the substance of peoples posts you make dishonest attacks against their character and pronounce unsupported boasts that the evidence for global warming is “crumbling”. Good show!

Let’s look at this thread, to see what’s really going on. It was claimed that the American Physical Society reversed it stance with regard to the science supporting global warming. This was shown to be a lie.(lie #1) Next someone posted a list of claims that recent changes in the analysis of data made 1934 the warmest year on record and eliminated evidence for warming. This was shown to be a deceptive bait and switch of talking about global temperature while only using the data for the US.(lie #2) Next a post was made where the data was selectively cherry picked to make it look like there has been some sudden cooling that negates the trends that have been seen. The errors in this analysis and the deceptive nature of the analysis were pointed out. (lie #3)

The anti-global warming proponents are being called lairs because they keep lying (at least three examples in this tread alone).

Yep. Their fraud is being exposed. I expect it will get worse (including violence from certain groups) in the next couple of years. Bullies do not like when people stand up to them.

Exactly-just look at the ad hominen attacks in this thread at anyone who dares question man made global warming.

Tonyl,

I’m not “anti-global warming” I simply reject the idea that HUMANS can or have caused what “warming” has occured. The most logical natural place to look is the sun…and none of the man-made global warming proponents want to look at this most likely source.

All sides of this arguement cherry pick and I doubt that there’s been much honest research on the issue in a decade.

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

Viscount Monckton 's Paper can be found here:

aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

It is troubling that in the denier literature there is such anger and personal attacks.

If you read the scientific literature, you find little or none of it. I gather deniers are following the dictum of a famous propagandist who pointed out that if you are up to no good, the best thing to do is to blame your intended victims of that very thing.

If they had the power to enforce their ideas, it might be bad news. Certainly, they made a good attempt in the US government; dozens of government scientists have reported being subjected to political pressure to alter their conclusions. But as politicians, corporations and ordinary people increasingly abandon denial, it appears that’s not going to happen.

Even the president, turning away from industry lobbyists, has now admitted that man-caused warming is a fact. And the list of large corporations acknowledging the problem grows daily.

Tough times to be a denier.

I see that you are still throwing out the baseless insults and ignoring all posts that show where your sources were lying. If you ever feel like actually looking into the claims you’ve been spouting, my posts will be on the server waiting; the data your sources and I were using will be patiently waiting on the NASA and Hadley Center servers.

From another thread (some of which has already been posted here):

No Smoking “Hot Spot” by Dr. David Evans…highlights summarized by a blogger:

…1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it…

…2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None…

…3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980)…

…4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect…

…What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise…
Full Article:

theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Notice temperatures rise in response to CO2.

Reality trumps anyone’s clever explanation.

The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001,

Let’s take a look at the actual data:

http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg

Nope. Still going up. Strongly so.

There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.

Sounds like a testable assertion…

The first evidence that this was happening was uncovered by E. O. Hulbert in 1931:
Hulburt, E.O. (1931). “The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth.” Physical Review 38: 1876-90.

The observation that rises in CO2 concentration were followed by rises in temperature is another source of evidence.

You’ve been badly misled on this point.

Not sure if this helps, but here’s a National Public Radio interview with NASA’s chief who admits that there is global warming but isn’t sure if humans can do much about it:
npr.org/blogs/news/2007/05/nasa_chief_questions_need_to_a_1.html

Graoh shows a steep declne in temperature from 1998 to 2005 I believe if we include 2006 and 2007 we would see an even steeper decline. Since, as you graph shows, cabon dioxide steadily increased during the entire period why the decline?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.