Details of Bush's new climate control plan leaked to the media

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has uncovered the details of a new “climate control” plan personally developed by US President George W. Bush that is set to be officially announced in the next few days.

Details so far:


When the “deniers” wake up, they’re going to be looking for the planetary thermostat see paper by Paul Crutzen

Then the argument will instantly flip. No more demands that proof beyond doubt must arrive before they can lift one finger to do anything. Then we’ll have another uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war, as the landmark 1988 Changing Atmosphere conference in Toronto put it, only this one will be intended…

This (below) from the 50,000 member American Physical Society, perhaps the cartoon is correct and all we need to properly address global warming is air conditioning and a cold beer.

There are a number of errors in what you have posted.

The paper is in the Newsletter of a forum of APS, not the APS itself. The Forum is called The Forum on Physics and Society.

Secondly, the “paper” by Monckton has not been endorsed by 50,000 physicists, rather it was an invited paper to start a debate on AGW. The editor of the forum invited a paper from the contra-camp (Monckton) and one from the pro-camp (Hafemeister and Schwartz). He then asked for “reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community”.

Hafemeister and Schwartz concluded their invited paper with the following: “(The) Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality”.

So it is wrong to say that “50,000 physicists support the “paper” submitted by Monckton. In fact, there are many negative critiques of this “paper” in many science fora on the internet and elsewhere.

It is completely dishonest for anyone to suggest that Monckton’s “paper” is the view of the APS.

Monckton’s “paper” contains many errors both in physics and climate science.

I look forward to the many responses from members of the APS to this “debate”.

For further information see:

Ian Forrester

I did not nor anyone to my knowledge claim the 50,000 members support a skeptic view. The APS opened it up for debate, which is interesting that the APS did so after hearing “here” that the debate been over for years.

Something that you have over looked too is the inconvienent fact global warming seems to have stopped a decade ago and recently the earth has been cooling, which is in conflict with computer model projections.

Inland, away from the moderating influence of oceans our temperature drops rapidly when the sun sets. Given 96 hours of darkness the world would freeze. There is no greenhouse effect.

To quote Stephen Wilde “The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe”

Everywhere on the denier blogsphere people are trumpeting that “50,000 physicists” agree that global warming is a hoax.

Your denier status is revealed in the second half of your post. The green house effect is real, trust me (otherwise the average temperature would be about minus 15 C.

Ian Forrester

Ian, I posted that fact APS has opened the debate into AWG. Regardlees of the yammering blogs why do you suppose the American Physical Society did so?

Btw, just something to read…case ya get bored.,21985,24036602-25717,00.html

A forum of APS opened the debate. It is included in a newsletter not one of their peer reviewed journals.

You are attempting to prove that 50,000 physicists deny AGW.

That is a lie. When are you going to admit that you are an AGW denier?

Ian Forrester

I thought it was obvious, I do not believe humans have a signifigant effect on global temperatures. And no I do not believe 500,000 physicists deny AWG but obviously some of them do.

And God bless ‘em. Let’s hope/pray “some” eventually come up with a rational argument disproving AGW, one that indicates a return to millenial climate trends and away from the climate disruption already in evidence.

In the meantime, there’s work to be done in both the mitigation of further AGW and adaptation to new conditions already manifesting themselves.