Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

[amped]

50,000 physicists reverse course to re-open the debate. I like these guys, they haven't rejected the scientific method for ideology and remain open-minded.

FTA:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Con...ticle12403.htm

[tripp]

This comes from the APS website regarding the supposed reversal:

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

[tripp]

Here's the URL to their site:

APS

[Godiva]

LOL!

Busted.

[F8L]

Wow, if you're correct Tripp then this is actually VERY amusing. Hahaha

[dogfriend]

If you read the comments to the article in the OP, one of the comments also points out that it is an editorial and does not represent the APS position on climate change.

[dogfriend]

This may be off-topic, but:

Why do some deny that we (humans) are having an effect on the planet? I am not involved with climate science in any way (I am an engineer by education) but it seems like common sense to me that if we have been burning fossil fuels for roughly 100 years, that material is being transferred from the ground into the atmosphere. Its got to have an effect eventually.

What is the argument against this?

[dragonfly]

Originally Posted by dogfriend

What is the argument against this?

Money

[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.

[amped]

Originally Posted by tripp

This comes from the APS website regarding the supposed reversal:

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