I'm having a little trouble finding the "explosion" in that text. They're publishing one paper by a presumptive skeptic, and are (ZOMG!) open to debate. Yeah, that's blown the consensus thing wide open, it has...
Let's also take a closer look at the two groups being asked to write the opposing opinions.
On the dissenting side, we have Christopher Monckton. Mr. Monckton is not a scientist by trade; he is, first and foremost, a politician, and a businessman next. He has recommended that the AIDS epidemic be dealt with by forcefully quarantining all individuals in the U.S. and U.K. who are infected. His policies and positions are similar to those of the current U.S. neo-conservative; you might imagine that Dick Cheney wrote an article critical of anthropogenic climate change, and you wouldn't be far off the mark.
On the supporting side, we have David Hafemeister (I didn't bother Googling "Peter Schwartz"). David holds a PhD in physics from the University of Illinois, and is currently employed at CalPoly. He has authored or coauthored a ... well, shall we say, "respectable" number of books, and an even larger quantity of papers. Peer-reviewed papers, no less. The next time you're feeling lazy, you might want to read his c.v. [http://www.calpoly.edu/~dhafemei/dh_cv_1107.pdf].
Disclaimer: I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority, and I do happen to think that some aspects of human impact on global climate have been politicized and blown out of proportion -- somewhat. I have always advocated the approach that we should try to live as efficiently as possible, leaving as small of a footprint on the planet as possible, even while continuing to understand all of the mechanisms involved in global climate patterns. That said, I think it's just silly to lend any credence whatsoever to the dissenting opinion in this case, and it's certainly ridiculous to claim that the "myth" of global warming has been "blown wide open".
I'm tempted to not even reply to this, but most of your previous comments aren't so trollish.
Did you completely skip over the first part of my last paragraph? "I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority." So, yes, naturally the relative backgrounds of the authors in question should be completely ignored.
In principle, it's wrong to attack a person's reputation in a debate, but I'm not entering the global warming "debate" here. I am instead criticizing the stupid tone of both the article and the headline posted here on News.YC.
Furthermore, even though in principle either ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacies shouldn't be used in debate, there are practical reasons for doing so. For one, I could devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to analyzing global climate patterns and the vast array of variables that influence them, and I still would not understand the field perfectly. Therefore, given two dissenting opinions, I will be more inclined to lend more credence to the opinion coming from the person that has spent that kind of time on analyzing the system.
I'd prefer not to fall into the tarpit of debating Darwinism with a creationist, nor social responsibility (or human rights, or liberty, or ... well, pretty much any sociological subject) with pretty much any current member of the U.S. Congress, nor global warming with Christopher Monckton.
And, finally, in case you missed it the first time: this is coming from someone who takes a stance very far away from what passes for environmentalism in the U.S.
The bulk of your first post still reads like a character attack, regardless of the disclaimers you've put in.
A nazi can do perfectly good rocket science, an oil company researcher can produce perfectly valid climate studies. Discussing character of your opponent in a debate in any form is off topic, unless you are on the Oprah show.
> Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
I'm having a little trouble finding the "explosion" in that text. They're publishing one paper by a presumptive skeptic, and are (ZOMG!) open to debate. Yeah, that's blown the consensus thing wide open, it has...