Russ Steele
In our discussion of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley's paper in Physics & Society, Lefty has posted a comment here requesting that both sides of the story get represented.
I agree it is important to views both sides of the issues, but the real news was that a section of the American Physical Society was willing to open the debate on human caused global warming, thus the interest in Monckton's invited paper. Then the breaking news became the seeming discourteous disclaimer posted over the invited article by the American Physical Society Executive Committee.
"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."
The same disclaimer was not posted over the counter arguments offered in A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change, by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, who conclude:
Conclusion: 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.
Full paper with both articles can be downloaded here: Download july08.pdf
Again, Hafemeister and Schwartz rely on computer models for increased warming, even though those models have not predicted the cooling that has taken place over the last ten years. Viscount Monckton explained how the models have failed, but I am not sure I understand all of the complex math. This I do understand, the real world temperatures are not following the models that proclaim increasing greenhouse gases will cause global warming. What is it that the global warmers do not understand about this graphic:
