Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

[dogfriend]

Originally Posted by amped

More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

Harmful in what way? How would it be harmful to reduce CO2 emissions?

[dragonfly]

Originally Posted by amped

Thanks tripp. We may be referencing different pieces. My link contains the embedded link that which carries no header or disclosure like your quote (at least I didn't see it), is dated July 2008. Your link is undated (again, from what I could see) but does support your contention.

Their editorial staff seems confused or is backtracking. I wonder if anything changed, or do I need glasses?


Here are links to articles within the same publication supporting the OP that were there all along:

Editor's Comments



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.

APS Physics | FPS | Editor's Comments


Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered



By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

What the hey? You cite an article that references an editorial on the APS Forum on Physics and Society and claims that based on this article, the APS had changed its position. Tripp comes along and tells you that the APS disputes the editorial, saying that the Forum on Physics and Society is merely a branch and does not represent the APS as a whole. Then you come back and print the very same editorial as if it supports the original article you cited, independent of the disputed statement Tripp cited. Yeah, I'd say you need glasses.

[amped]

Since, as I wrote, I didn't see the disclaimer he quoted, could he be referring to another article? Or, could you highlight the header and disclaimer in the articles I quoted and linked?

Also, tripp's link addresses only one of two articles I quoted and linked. Which one? Does that mean the other is undisputed?

Catching on yet?

[EJFB1029]

Yeah, I caught the desperation in your post.

[dogfriend]

In the Editors Comments, he said they invited papers arguing both for and against the IPCC conclusions. I noticed that you gave the link for the paper submitted arguing against the IPCC conclusions, but you forgot to link the paper submitted arguing for the IPCC conclusions.

Here it is: APS Physics | FPS | A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change

Abstract: In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected a likely temperature rise of 3 oC (2 to 4.5 oC) from a doubled CO2 of 560 ppm in this century.[i] Many believe that a rise of 2–2.5 oC will cause a “dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate.” Earth has already had a rise of 0.8 oC in less than one-half century, and it is projected to rise another 0.6 oC as the planet adjusts to the present level of CO2. Scientists have accumulated compelling evidence besides the temperature data to document a warming Earth. The observations include the shrinking of the northern ice cap (40% thinner in 30 years, and a considerable loss in surface area in the last year) and Greenland’s glaciers, lakes are frozen a shortened time by about two weeks, and summer is two weeks longer as determined by animal and plant cycles. The discussion sensibly moves to two main questions: “Are non-anthropogenic causes of warming significant” and “how much warmer will Earth become?”

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.

[Godiva]

Harmful to their wallets. Reducing emissions also reduces profits. Supposedly.

Originally Posted by dogfriend

Harmful in what way? How would it be harmful to reduce CO2 emissions?

[richard schumacher]

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As he is a reactionary religious nutball whose formal education ended with a degree in journalism, his opinions on global warming are valueless. Try to avoid following him into the abyss.

[MegansPrius]

Originally Posted by amped

Thanks tripp. We may be referencing different pieces. My link contains the embedded link that which carries no header or disclosure like your quote (at least I didn't see it), is dated July 2008. Your link is undated (again, from what I could see) but does support your contention.

Their editorial staff seems confused or is backtracking. I wonder if anything changed, or do I need glasses?


Here are links to articles within the same publication supporting the OP that were there all along:

Editor's Comments



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.

APS Physics | FPS | Editor's Comments


Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered



By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

If you click the "Newsletters" link on the left of the page you linked to, you'll clearly see:

Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews, and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.

Beyond which, the author, Christopher Monckton, is frankly rather legendary for his ability to miscalculate scientific matters. For a sampling of Monckton's wonkiness, see Deltoid or Christopher Monckton | DeSmogBlog

[chogan2]

Originally Posted by dogfriend

True.

If you can make money from pumping oil from the ground and preparing it so people can burn it in their automobiles, couldn't you also make money from building the infrastructure to use cleaner energy sources?

Probably too much risk. Its better to f'up the planet instead.

It boils down to who gets the money. A lot of people have their careers and wealth invested in fossil fuels. A plan to (say) phase out the burning of coal reduces their wealth/makes their career pointless. So their against it. Period. Whatever it is. Facts and logic don't enter into it at all. That's as far as the thinking goes. And any way to prevent the change is acceptable.

This is one of the main reasons we need prosperous clean-energy industries. We need to have some entity that can offer enough counter-bribes to our politicians to offset the bribes from the fossil-fuel industries. Sorry, substitute campaign contribution for bribe.

Just to put some numbers on this, US recoverable coal reserves are estimated at about 500 billion short tons. The price of coal varies widely by type, but $40/ton is a mid-range value at present (both figures from US DOE). That's $20 trillion worth of coal, that somebody owns right now, in a manner of speaking. About 1.3x the US annual GDP. Annual production is about 0.3 billion short tons. If we put a plan in place to phase out coal in 20 years, the value of that 20 year's production is about $0.25 trillion. Basically, current coal owners would lose 99% of their wealth under a plan to phase out coal in 20 years. And, looking at the numbers, we can't afford to buy them out. So, yeah, hey're going to fight this any way they can.

[chogan2]

On a further note, this is like onto the Nth time that some anti-global-warming piece has been posted here in a way that partially or completely distorts even the facts of the piece, let alone the underlying science. I wish you deniers would at least do a little homework before posting. Maybe present all the facts. Maybe even read the entire article before posting it. It may be satisfying to post this junk but it's a waste of time to have to track down the actual facts.

Is this a baseless rant? Off the top of my head, I can recall the "Giant Volcanoes Under the Ice Cap" piece, where the scientists involved actually said, in the cited article, that the undersea vents had nothing to do with the melting of the icecap. (Which, BTW, at last look, does not look like it's going to melt all the way to the pole anyways.) Then there was the article on projected European cooling, where once again the scientists involved said that their models matched mainstream climate models over the longer term, they just diverged on the order of one decade. In other words, the research actually confirmed the mainstream view of global warming.

Then we have this one, where if you follow megansprius links, you see that the guy who wrote the editorial, which was clearly labeled as the opinion of the author only, sued Gore over "An Inconvenient Truth". Oh, you mean those sorts of facts? Yeah, I mean those sorts of facts -- like the fact that the title of the thread is just plain wrong.

FWIW, here's my take on it, from years in the health services research industry: If you see people scraping the bottom of the barrel, that usually means the barrel's empty.