“In May, Council tabled a motion by Robert Austin that would have replaced the current APS statement on climate change with a new one much more skeptical of the evidence for, and consequences of, anthropogenic global warming. At its November 8 meeting, Council took it off the table and brought it to a vote.

The result: the motion was soundly defeated, with no one voting in favor and only one abstention. Even Austin voted against it.”

http://aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/climate.cfm

By the way, if all human activities stopped today the warming will continue for 1,000 years. Nice going.

Never mind, I see the debate is going full throttle! Seems the Church of Al Gore is trying to start a modern-day Inquisition.

How much you want to bet that disclaimer was added later?

AJStrata

Now he wants to know exactly who put that disclaimer there, why, and under what authority.

Pass the popcorn please!

I was reading an article on Science Daily today about “rescuing” species stranded by “global warming” and I thought it amazing what morons they take people for. Or maybe they are so caught up in the cognitive dissonance that the fact that there is no warming just doesn’t register with them.

Sort of like the icebreaker load of “environmentalists” who were determined to travel the Northwest Passage this year from West to East. They were on the most powerful non-nuclear icebreaker in the world … they got stuck in the ice. They could not believe it. They were blaming the ships crew, they could not believe there would be more ice than the ship could get through. They were stuck there for three weeks. They never were able to make their journey.

I still see articles that claim there will be less sea ice in the Arctic this year than last … and the opposite is true. There is over 1 million km more ice and this year’s melt is falling further and further behind last year.

For example … lets say the global climate doesn’t change. And lets say I have 10 monitoring stations. Over time, urban creep is encroaching on three of them, forests have been cut down and fields planted around two of them, and two of them are in desert areas that are now heavily irrigated and farmed. The remaining three stations are unchanged in the area surrounding them.

Now over a 10 year period we see that three unchanged stations show no long term trend. The three with urban creep show increases in both daytime high and nighttime low temperatures as do the ones with the cut down forests. The ones in the desert with irrigation show no increase in daytime highs but do show an increase in nighttime lows which increases the “average” temperature.

So add all those up and divide by 10 and you will find that the average temperature has increased … yet climate didn’t change at all.

Then someone notices something … they notice that in the 19th century we had a horrible problem globally with pirates. In the 20th century the climate warmed as we got pirates under control. Low and behold … in 2007 and 2008 we have an increasing problem with pirates off the coast of Somalia and bingo … temperatures are starting to drop again so a thesis is put forth that global warming is caused by a lack of pirates on the high seas.

There is one measurement that is an accurate read of the heat content of the earth’s atmosphere and that is the temperature of the oceans. Average ocean temperatures have cooled slightly since 2004. SURFACE temperatures of the ocean are a function of the breeze blowing across it but temperatures of the first dozen meters or so tell the story. There is a program of drifting buoys that drop to depth, then rise to the surface taking the temperature as they go and when they get to the surface, they report the result by satellite. Temperatures are dropping. There are no cleared fields, irrigated desert, or urban sprawl in the ocean.

Imagine if you had a group of 10 people and you took their temperature and averaged it over the 10. Now imagine two of them are sick and so you announce that since the average is now higher, they are all sick and must get treatment that costs billions of dollars. It is just stupid. It is dumb. But they get away with it because 50% of the population is below the median intelligence level and simply believes whatever they are told and don’t trust their own judgment enough to question what they are being fed.

If anything, the sun being inactive the way it is, we’re headed towards Global Cooling right now.

If CO2 is causing the Earth temps to rise, why are all the other planets also rising at the same rate, we do not have SUVs on them do we???? And whyis it that the IPCC reports that 1998 was the hottest year, but we cometo findout that many years in the 30s were hotter.

Another thing that bugs me is the use of “Global Climate”. There is no such thing. Climatology is a localized science, scuh asthe Climate ofSt. Louis, or the Climate of Florida. There is no such thing as Global Climate.

And if you see where we get our temperature readings from, you would think twice about this being anywhere close to being scientific. Most temperature gauges are not in compliance with what you would call scientifically placed. Most are near urban sprawl, or black top parkling lots, or next to air conditioning units.

Another thingis thatit is mathematically inpossibleto get the averagemean temperature for the Earth. So all the Doom and Gloom is all for money. Just followwhere money goesto. Without Global Warming many scientists would be out of work.

I wrote the post as is, and the corrections are in the comments. I don’t need a nag – thanks.

I’m a correctness over process type. If the title and premise of your post was about why you think the IPCC modeling is flawed, I wouldn’t be pushing this issue. But it is not. The title and premise of your post claim that the 50,000 scientist who are part of APS changed their position on global warming and the supposed peer-reviewed publication by Lord Monckton supports this shift. Your statements that APS changed its position on global warming, that APS agrees with the Lord Monckton publication and that the Lord Monckton publication has been peer-reviewed are all completely wrong. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite on all three accounts.

Anyone who reads your post without reviewing all of the comments pointing out these inaccuracies will be completely mislead. Why wouldn’t you want to post an update correcting this error? If you want to demonstrate that you truly believe we should “let the facts (not hype) lead us to an answer” as you claim in the post and avoid looking like you don’t know what you are talking about for those that actually read the comments, it seems like an update with the correction is a no-brainer.

Norm has a point. It took me less than a minute to discover your error about APS’ position. I did also notice that there are a number of other conservative blogs that reached this same erroneous conclusion because they were so excited to write about the supposed smoking gun to disprove the global warming theory that they didn’t take the extra minute to verify whether it was true. Maybe you simply assumed these other blogs were correct and it was a honest mistake (although you really should do a little more research before you write on topics). Regardless, several of us have pointed out the glaring flaw in the central premise of your post and you have yet to respond or correct your post. Come on AJ, your credibility is on the line. We all want to know – should we continue reading your global warming posts to get a different perspective than the mainstream articles on this issue or should we ignore them because we know now that you don’t care if your posts are inaccurate and/or misleading so long as it supports your pre-conceived conclusion?

Peer-review is not the be all and end all of science.

With that said, the whole Goracle fantasy of Manbearpig is unraveling. More and More scientists are coming out against this theory that was formed by models, in which you get junk in / junk out.