Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?

It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.

"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion," he wrote.


Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

I find the whole idea of global warning irrelavent, I will continue to use as much energy as I wish. If there is or isn't a man made global warning problem is for governments to solve.

I think the point is most people don't wish to cut the energy consumption, so the government should get used to that and find better ways to ensure we all have enough energy.

The idea that the there are scientists that don't agree that man is causing global warning doesn't surprise me one bit.
The idea that governments don't want these scientists debating the issue is quite concerning though.

If they can do this on this issue what other things may be being hidden from us!

quote:

Originally posted by Chrisgo:
I find the whole idea of global warning irrelavent, I will continue to use as much energy as I wish. If there is or isn't a man made global warning problem is for governments to solve.

I think the point is most people don't wish to cut the energy consumption, so the government should get used to that and find better ways to ensure we all have enough energy.

The idea that the there are scientists that don't agree that man is causing global warning doesn't surprise me one bit.
The idea that governments don't want these scientists debating the issue is quite concerning though.

If they can do this on this issue what other things may be being hidden from us!

Saving the planet is a misnomer.

Whether there is or there is not global warming, the human race cannot continue with the current rate of consumption.

We might face extinction in a couple hundred years, but it is only a few seconds in comparison to the Dinosaurs.

The question remains whether humans are of any importance.

The Planet will continue.

The earth is a balanced eco-system. So why does man think he can tip the balance and get away with it?

quote:

find the whole idea of global warning irrelavent, I will continue to use as much energy as I wish. If there is or isn't a man made global warning problem is for governments to solve

Good for you. That's the sort of "I'm all right Jack" attitude Britain can be proud of.

quote:

Originally posted by hardwon:

quote:

find the whole idea of global warning irrelavent, I will continue to use as much energy as I wish. If there is or isn't a man made global warning problem is for governments to solve

Good for you. That's the sort of "I'm all right Jack" attitude Britain can be proud of.

And, maybe the Government will try to solve your rate of consumption by turning off your supply for 20 hours of the day, if you are not capable of making changes yourself??

You wouldn't be able to say that "the Government" hadn't solved it then

There is no one more obsessed than a AGW proponent. I think they could be very dangerous in their pursuit of a solution to an unproven theory.

Quote: currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are ... and could even be harmful.

quote:

Originally posted by Bonmot:
There is no one more obsessed than a AGW proponent. I think they could be very dangerous in their pursuit of a solution to an unproven theory.

Quote: currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are ... and could even be harmful.

Without bringing the "Global Warming" argument into it - do you not agree that we should ALL be doing whatever we can to conserve the energy resources we have?

That's just good housekeeping, not scare-mongering.

quote:

Originally posted by hardwon:

quote:

Originally posted by Bonmot:
There is no one more obsessed than a AGW proponent. I think they could be very dangerous in their pursuit of a solution to an unproven theory.

Quote: currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are ... and could even be harmful.

Without bringing the "Global Warming" argument into it - do you not agree that we should ALL be doing whatever we can to conserve the energy resources we have?

That's just good housekeeping, not scare-mongering.

Yes of course. It makes perfect sense because in a few years some things are gonna be a bit pricey.