[luke warm]

"The American Physical Society, representing 50,000 physicists, has opened up a debate on global warming after only declaring in November 2007 that global warming is indeed occuring. The group was founded in 1899 and is opening debate because there is significant presence in the scientific community that do not agree with the findings of the IPCC."

man-induced global warming proponents are losing more members than they are gaining... is open debate on this "settled" issue a good thing?

[hrothgar]

Troll

I've always maintained that you're a partisan hack. But recycling articles from newsbusters is low even for you.

[Al_U_Card]

LOL

C'mon Richard, even if Jimmy were cointelpro or a CIA fake or whatever....do you think that BridgeBase forums qualify as a subversive or otherwise conspiracy oriented site/organization? Unless he is doing it in his spare time to keep "sharp", that is unrealistic to say the least. The scariest part is that there may (for sure I hope not) a large number of folks out there that have faith and believe in the powers that be.....without looking closely to see just what they are up to!

I wonder, do the cows in the herd think that the cowboys are "taking care" of them....or do they suspect more sinister motives......

[kenberg]

I suppose that we could also have a debate on whether cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. A friend of mine is not convinced. His father is seventy some years old, smokes, and is still alive so the evidence must be wrong, or at least it doesn't apply to him. Yes, he really believes this. As Dave Barry used to say, I am not making this up.

I am sure there is a great need for the further study of global warming just as there is a need for the further study of lung cancer and the further study of the various mechanisms of evolution. Science studies things. That's different from saying that we ought to delay for another decade while we attempt to convince those who clearly will never be convinced. Time, and science, march on.

[Al_U_Card]

I worked in the tobacco industry. Hell I even wrote some papers and memos that the guys mentioned in that film with Russel Crowe would have read.....

It is clear that smoking, like any other form of particulate air pollution, causes lung distress and bronchial disease. Cancers of various types and locations occur for many hereditary and environmental reasons and smoking is the "smoking gun" of reasons....

People will believe what they will for it comforts and placates them in the face of the unknown and the undesirable. Nothing new or newsworthy there.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 18 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

Troll

I've always maintained that you're a partisan hack. But recycling articles from newsbusters is low even for you.

i take it you think debating this issue is a bad idea, then... btw, is the APS debating it or not? and are man-caused global warming advocates declining or not? i honestly don't see what i said that irritates you so... i suppose it's the same with all religions zealots, though

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

and are man-caused global warming advocates declining or not?

Surely more and more folks see that man contributes a great deal to global warming. The population of the world is expanding and more and more people are educated.

[luke warm]

ok, it's starting to clear up now... an American Physical Society editor, Jeffrey Marque, made the following post in a forum:

Quote

"With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. 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. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion..."

the aps then felt the need to reaffirm its stance on gw... so i don't know if there is going to be a debate on the subject or not, but it appears that if there is it will only be found in the pages of Physics & Society