Your source of proof is the “Men’s News Daily”? Please.
The MND’s article incorrectly states there is “mathematical proof that there is no climate crisis”. Using words such as “published” in debate … in Physics and Society, a “scientific publication” of the 46,000-strong “American Physical Society” (APS) makes it sound like this was a scientific work published in a respected journal, when in fact is just an opinion article in one of their online newsletter forums. The APS states “This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed”.
This is the link to the original article:
http://www.aps.org/units/fsp/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm(1) The article is not a proper scientific study so it cannot be proof. It is an opinion of the author. The article is not held up to any sort of statistical analysis and the author is unable to state any conclusion with any level of confidence. The article abstract states, …”the conclusion is that
perhaps there is no “climate crisis”.
(2) The article does not have support from the APS. A press release from the APS (July 22/08) states “American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement “Emissions of greenhouse gasses from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring”. “The society’s position has not changed, and APS remains engaged in the issue that has considerable international consequences”.
This is a link to the APS Media response to the original article:
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange08.cfmYou quoted Lord Monckton’s conclusion in the article “The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing”. While that statement in itself is true, he cannot apply it to global warming being a non-problem because he can’t draw any conclusions because he didn’t conduct a proper study.
The article in the MND’s is scary because there will be people reading it who will take it at face value and believe it to be true. Let’s say it were true, does that mean we should not bother with annual air care car emissions tests, not worry about clear-cutting our forests, throw away our blue boxes and stop recycling, take the car when we can walk, and stop designing energy-efficient communities and transportation systems? Maybe it would mean that, or it could result in an easy excuse not to take better care of our Earth.
I’m sure we can all start citing real studies about global warming, but I agree that mud forums are not the place to discuss politics.
