American Physical Society reviewing its climate stance

WUWT readers may recall that my posting in July 2008 on some of the angst going on within APS over a paper from Christopher Monckton ruffled a few feathers. The paper,  Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, was reviewed by APS and this odd disclaimer then placed on it:

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.

What was odd, is that APS invited Monckton to submit, so to then place a disclaimer was quite unusual. However there is good news; they may be changing their tune on climate change issues. Today we have this from Luboš Motl:

APS is reviewing its statements on climate change

APS_logo_denied

Click to find out why

Climate alarmism is a particularly embarrassing attitude for professional institutions that should represent disciplines with very high intellectual standards because climate alarmism is associated with extremely poor intellectual (and ethical) standards, besides other negative characteristics.

The American Physical Society (APS) was therefore embarrassed on November 18th, 2007 when its bodies approved an alarmist statement that was much more constructive and issue-oriented than the statements of many institutions outside physics but it was still a scientists’ variation of the same blinded, biased, irrational hysteria.

It shouldn’t be surprising that members around Will Happer, a renowned Princeton physicist, wrote an

Open Letter to the American Physical Society

where they mention that the climate has always been changing and warming and trace gases have many positive effects, according to scientific literature. The proposed new statement also discusses the unreliability of the existing climate models and urges the scientists to investigate all these effects objectively, and to study technological options related to the climate that are independent of the cause.

The petition has been signed by

more than 50 well-known past and current APS members.

Add your name if you are one, too.

Happily, Nature just published a letter from six members that informs that the APS is currently reviewing its 2007 statement:
Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change

By S. Fred Singer, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, Roger Cohen & Robert H. Austin

We write in response to your issue discussing “the coming climate crunch”, including the Editorial ‘Time to act‘ (Nature 458, 10771078; 2009). We feel it is alarmist.

We are among more than 50 current and former members of the American Physical Society (APS) who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change (see open letter at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u; APS statement at http://tinyurl.com/56zqxr). The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence. It requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.

On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to American Physical Society reviewing its climate stance

  1. Kath says:

    Ah, wonderful news.

  2. Patrick Davis says:

    Interesting. There’s a lot of CYA going on at the moment isn’t there.

  3. Bill in Vigo says:

    It is good to see that there are some that can see that the science is not settled. We learn from study of properly collected data. We must always strive to collect new data to increase our understanding of the system called climate.

    Bill Derryberry

  4. David Ball says:

    I found it funny that advocates of AGW tried to act like Fred Singer did not have decades of experience studying the climate. Just pretending that all has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Glad he has not gone quietly into the night , but further into the breach.

  5. timetochooseagain says:

    How about scientific organizations be forbidden from advocating for policies of any kind? Regardless of AGW’s validity, I don’t want APS lobbying for energy rationing-is that to much to ask?

  6. INGSOC says:

    I am glad I poked in here for one last read. This article calms my mind a great deal. As I have said before, it is inevitable that the AGW sham will be exposed. Bit by logical bit.

    I am a patient guy.

  7. Michael Hauber says:

    Statement from the APS as it currently stands:

    Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

    Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

  8. rbateman says:

    This cannot come too soon. When the alarmsim has died down, good senses regained, the climate data that is being relentlessly harmed in pursuit of agenda may be lost. We may find ourselves wishing for critical information and not be able to find it.
    Provenance is everything.

  9. Mike D. says:

    Nature has abandoned all pretext of rational inquiry in favor of setting it’s hair on fire in the public square. The mag used to have scientific scruples but no longer has any use for such, preferring to cast aside science and adopt a hysterical, a-scientific tone.

    And that’s sad. Sad for science, sad for a once great institution, sad for all of us.

  10. noaaprogrammer says:

    However if scientists are now adopting the mindset of Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, in the UK; they are “post-normal” $cientists who no longer believe in requirements of true science: skepticism, disinterestedness, etc. Post normal $cientists and their formerly $cientific organizations are merely puddy in the hands of politicians.

  11. Nasif Nahle says:

    Just a question:

    Currently, I’m a member of the APS. The petition is for being signed only by US residents or also by those who are living out of the US?

    REPLY:
    As I understand it it is open to all APS members. – A

  12. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    A small analogy wrt the recent AGW Hub-Bub…

    “Well, I went out yesterday and it was quite cool, and then today it was much warmer, so I said to myself – well that’s a trend isn’t it. It’s just going to like – get so much hotter!

    So I picked up my hand saw and chopped my left leg off, because I figured that I just had to do something about it…”

    (Parody, in response to how the alarmists seem to me).

  13. Glenn says:

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

    “The evidence is incontrovertible.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incontrovertible_evidence

    “Incontrovertible evidence is a colloquial term for evidence introduced to prove a fact that is supposed to be so conclusive that there can be no other truth as to the matter; evidence so strong it overpowers contrary evidence, directing a fact-finder to a specific and certain conclusion.”

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:incontrovertible&ei=kpJuSq3_BI_IMNebrOMI&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

    “impossible to deny or disprove”
    “Not capable of being denied, challenged, or disputed; closed to questioning”
    “the quality of being undeniable and not worth arguing about”
    “not being debatable; incontestability”

    APS leadership needs to get other jobs, say at McDonalds. This regard for inference and theory to be taken as “fact” and “truth” weakens science.
    Even real facts, which are “the world’s data”, recorded observations as opposed to inferences and explanations, are not incontrovertible, as many facts have been shown to be wrong.

  14. Mick says:

    Folks, there is hope and there is reality.
    Call me pessimist/paranoid, but the current political environment
    is just not flexible enough to sense/respond to a wind change.
    It’s impossible for the speaker of the house and the ruling party and BHO
    to change course. They’re tyed to the mast…
    The question is the do they take everybody with them or just their boat?

  15. I am doing something similar with respect to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, which is Australia’s peak body for mining professionals. The AusIMM put out a pro-AGW document last December: http://www.ausimm.com.au/Content/docs/carbon_pollution_reduction_scheme.pdf

    The carbon tax here will shut down at least one third of the mining industry, let alone all the other damage. Right at the moment, three AusIMM directorships are up for election, so I have nominated. I encourage all other AusIMM members to do similar beofre 6th August.

    The 80,000 strong Australian Institute of Engineers also has a pro-AGW stand.

    We have to refresh the boards of these organisations so that they take more notice of science than religion in their deliberations.

  16. UK Sceptic says:

    Let’s hope that this shift in attitude by the APS isn’t stillborn. Let’s hope they have the courage to admit that they got it wrong about AGW.

  17. Nasif Nahle says:

    Moderator “A” (Anthony?)… Done! I hope my signature will pass. Thanks a lot! :)

    [Reply: Yes, "A" is Anthony. ~dbstealey, mod.]

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    “It requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.”

    This is more important than any of our lives.
    We must not lose enlightenment.

  19. CodeTech says:

    noaaprogrammer makes a great observation…

    I’m starting to realize there are three:
    Science,
    science, and
    $cience.

    Science is what we revere, the things that work, the laws: Gravity, Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy, Physics, Chemistry, Nuclear Physics, Quantum Physics, etc.

    science is what we watch on Discovery (mostly), science is the space program, ISS, Shuttles, Ares, HDTV, iPods, cell phones, laptops, computers, microwave ovens, etc.

    $cience is AGW, trans-fat bans, DDT bans, Freon bans, unilateral nuclear disarmament, organic farms, mandatory ethanol content, $cience is what 0bamarama wants to put front and center. $cience always seems to make someone rich, even if they’ve done absolutely nothing.

  20. crosspatch says:

    I would say this has been a most amazing week. Someone from Oklahoma let Senator Inhofe know about this (I don’t have his ear). We not only have someone with access to the UK climate data bringing that forward for scrutiny, we now have the APS considering their stand on the issue.

    According to the climate models, the weather we are seeing now with 3000 record lows should be nearly impossible to happen. By now the climate should have warmed so much from 1998 that record highs should be the consistent norm. They aren’t. And satellite data is showing significant cooling, Continental US data from surface measurement is showing significant cooling (8 degrees per century over the past 10 years!) and only data kept by the climate modelers is showing a rise that validates their own models.

    The most expensive scam ever to be played on the population of the world is about to be undone. There is a lot at stake for a lot of people, I hope it doesn’t get too nasty but when people have careers and reputations to defend, ethics can quickly go out the window.

  21. anna v says:

    UK Sceptic (23:20:25) :

    Let’s hope that this shift in attitude by the APS isn’t stillborn. Let’s hope they have the courage to admit that they got it wrong about AGW.

    I think it is not just that they got it wrong for the AGW. They are in absolute error because they politicized science. It could have been Eugenics. It could have been “end of oil”, etc. etc. The gatekeepers of scientific bodies should upkeep the scientific method and not get involved in politics. Political bodies exist whose job it is to do that.

    The scientific method is independent of consensus or voting, it supports skepticism as a way of life. They, APS as a body, have let all science down by supporting the prostitution of its values and we, as scientists, will be collectively paying the price for years to come whether we are responsible or not.

  22. Patrick Davis says:

    OT, here in Australia according to the weatherman, we’ve had our warmest July in 4 years, and is also the 8th warmest in 150 years. Hummm…..

  23. NS says:

    Glenn (23:06:06) :

    “Do you want fries with that” ?!

    How can a scientific association issue this nonsense:

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

    That is not in any way a scientific or even logical statement it is pure politics.

  24. Phillip Bratby says:

    For those who haven’t already seen it, a letter to the Royal Society concerning their stance is at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Royal%20Society%20Letter.pdf

  25. Brandon Dobson says:

    Politics, Religion, and Global Warming

    It’s odd that the two things that shouldn’t be discussed at work are now rolled into one with global warming. These subjects are taboo in mixed company because of the emotional response they invoke, spawning a viral hysteria that has infected our scientific institutions and political system. The worst of the infested have banded together in a small group not unlike a leper colony, isolated, sickly, and without influence in this age of scientific enlightenment, and have called themselves the DeSmog Blog for lack of anything relevant. The DeSmogs originally concealed their fanaticism behind shrill blurbs about funding sources, but now with a burgeoning crowd of scientists who object to the religion of global warming on purely objective grounds, they have retreated to a pattern of personal attacks without logical substance. Shunned and broken, in a year or two they will grow silent, perhaps to integrate themselves into the real world.

    “Global Warming as Religion and not Science
    John Brignell
    June 2007

    “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

    Blaise Pascal

    Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:

    “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

    The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. They were not, however, always so wise. In 1900, for example, the great Lord Kelvin famously stated, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” Within a few years classical physics was shattered by Einstein and his contemporaries. Since then, in science, the debate is never closed.

    No one has bettered Mencken’s definition of Puritanism – the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. It is an unfortunate characteristic of many varieties of religion that this characteristic is to the fore and Global Warming is far from being an exception.

    Above all, science represented the triumph of humanity over the primitive superstitions that haunted our ancestors, a creation of pure reason, a monument to that evolutionary (or, if you prefer, God-given) miracle of the human brain. It is too valuable just to be tossed away like a used tissue. But who will speak for science when the barbarian is already inside the gate?”

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

  26. crosspatch says:

    How can a scientific association issue this nonsense:

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

    As I parse this ..

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring”

    At the time this statement was written the global average temperature was increasing. I believe that statement could be true.

    “If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.”

    This is where they go off the deep end. First of all “If no mitigating actions are taken” assumes that mitigating actions CAN be taken. That is rather grandiose in that it implies that they know what is causing it and how much mitigation would be required to reverse it because it further implies that the amount of mitigation required is within our ability. So can they be more forthcoming in their estimation of exactly how much mitigation would be required and how much that will cost?

    “We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

    Here they assume greenhouse gasses are the source of the global warming. But which one? Water? Certainly not CO2 since the atmosphere is practically already opaque to the wavelengths that CO2 operates on.

    So we have satellite data that shows cooling. Continental US surface data that shows cooling. Proxy records that show climate being all over the place over the past several thousand years with temperatures and sea levels nowhere near what they were 7,000 years ago when they were at their maximum.

    It’s just nuts.

  27. Ron de Haan says:

    The Council of the American Physical Society has been politicized.
    The harm done to science and the individual reputation of scientists is tremendous.

    The council has to go.

  28. Jack Hughes says:

    The ‘Open Letter’ is bonkers. They have missed the point completely.

    The APS does not need to have any ‘policy’ or ‘statement’ at all on this issue.

    I bet they don’t have a policy on Ohm’s Law or a policy on Newtonian Mechanics. Their only policies should be in support of the scientific approach – this includes freedom to hold different or even no views on any topic, skepticism, openness, tolerance.

    The open-letter crew should just get the existing spiel retracted and replaced with a blank space.

  29. Alan the Brit says:

    This is what happens when the marxist-left get their act together, infiltrating every aspect of society from top to bottom, inlusive of professional organizations including my own. Some are benign, some are genuine & sincere in their beliefs, & some have other ideas. Couple this with the well or not so well intentioned PC brigade, professionals suddenly feel they’re perhaps not being understanding enough, & want to engage the public perhaps, to promote themselves in the public eye for better understanding. Game on for those nefarious types mentioned. Perhaps the Forlorn hope will have their day at last, the casulaties have been heavy, but the sacrifice not in vein, & the victory WILL be theirs. The Royal Society is a classic example – the people are in position, the money is on the table, give us the results we want! The tide has washed across from Europe to the continent of North America, perhaps it will wash back again eventually. However, watch out for the classic avoidance tactic, they just ignore you in the hope that you will go away! This time I think not, but December is looming & ever more crass reports will ooze to the surface, claiming ever greater disaster on the horizon. Get to the media, & out the loons. BTW Philip Bratby, it was a wonderful letter;-) Summer to date in the UK is a wash out & the weather boys & girls are all in a tiz about it as they can’t forecast decent weather ahead. We had one bbq in May, & one at the start of July. Fin! Well done Deep Thought.

  30. Tony Hansen says:

    Who are the “respected senior scientists” sitting on the review sub-committee ?

  31. VG says:

    This at last is real in the sense that a large group of highly respected Physicists/Weathermen/women are taking them on. Also Nature (Journal) is perhaps finally realizing it has to face the data (it ain’t warmin) and the Science is not established in any way or form supported by recent publications in “respected journals”. I would not go looking for “heads to hang” and just “let em off the hook” …After all I (and many others amongst us skeptics now), thought AGW was real in 1998 (36C in London!). This should cause a MAJOR re-think on the Emmissions laws been considered around the world. BTW 3 Cheers for WUWT and CA

  32. VG says:

    Another simple equation re:C02 we now have 6 billion people whereas in 1930 we only had 1 billion?), As a Physiologist I know that we CANNOT breath unless we have C02 stimulation of the Respiratory center in the CNS. Maybe this is the cause….not likely.

  33. VG says:

    The DMI NH temps (links on this site, above to right)
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    actually are more proof that there is no AGW effect on NH Ice. As I understand it, the arctic ice melt over that last two weeks has been quite strong, yet temps are still spot on normal/or slightly below. It is winds and sea currents. Currently NH ice melt has slowed down considerably will probably go 2005 way, but let us wait and see.

  34. VG says:

    This may be a bit over the top (OTT) but the fact that Nature
    has linked the Alarmist Article
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/4581077a.html
    to the Singer’s Et al comment at THE TOP of the article is extremely significant. It signifies a fundamental change of posture by the hierarchy me thinks.

  35. bigcitylib says:

    So the claim that the APS is reconsidering comes from the letter itself, and not the APS? The letter could be baloney. Probably is, given the authors.

  36. kim says:

    On deck is the American Geophysical Union. Batter Up.

    It’s sort of fun to reread Andy Revkin’s mammoth AGU thread on DotEarth 18 months ago. How many more times does Andy have to hear the skeptical message before it sinks in?
    ==================================

  37. Mark Fawcett says:

    Some time ago a politician and a reporter were invited onto a new, exciting and experimental aircraft – the ‘AGW1′ by a team of scientists, who’d invented said machine.

    It took some time to persuade said politician and reporter onboard, but once there, they realised the financial and power rewards that would be available to anyone ‘in-on-the-act’ first.

    They banged the drum of support, made the new aircraft headline news, proposed a tax on all other forms of transport and suggested that anyone denying that the ‘AGW1′ could fly should be prosecuted.

    Some however, did deny that it would work, respected engineers would comment that the technology was unproven; mathematicians found serious flaws in the stress analysis and ‘normal’ members of the public looked at the 8-wing design (with the engines on top) and muttered to themselves “here we go again, bloody scientists…”. All were shouted at, or ignored, or subjected to personal attacks.

    Came the day of the maiden flight; all the GCMs (General Cockpit Models) had predicted the beast would fly, with an ever accelerating climb rate – the sky was not the limit!

    All went well with take-off, the initial climb was as predicted… but then, after only a few minutes, the engines started to cough and the climb rate started to level out…then drop. “Don’t worry” said the scientists, “there’s a little engine trouble that’s ‘masking’ the underlying climb rate”.

    As the descent continued, and the airframe started to shake, the politician and reporter looked at each other then, as one, started to shuffle slowly toward the back of the aircraft. As they slipped on the only 2 parachutes available the scientists continued “oh yes, you’ll see, it’s going to go up even faster soon… hello? hello? Is there anybody there?…”

  38. Urederra says:

    Anthony:

    The American Chemical Society has also an “official” position on climate change, which is easy to find under the “Policy” section of http://www.acs.org. and it is similar to the APS statement posted here.

    The thing is that the editor-in-chief of C&EN, the weekly bulletin sent to all ACS members, expressed his views on climate change in the editorial posted two weeks ago. He did in the way we are used to read in the mass media, giving the impression that ‘the science is settled’ and that ‘we have to do something to save the planet’, the usual propaganda. This editorial enraged many chemist fellows who sent replies to him. Some of them were not fit to print, according to the Editor-in-chief.

    As a sample I copy and paste the final paragraph of this week’s C&EN editorial.

    Meanwhile, the science marches on. On
    July 7, the American Geophysical Union put
    out a press release on a paper appearing in
    the Journal of Geophysical Research—Oceans .
    “Scientists have evaluated for the first
    time how much the thickness and volume
    of Arctic sea ice, not just the ice’s surface
    area, have shrunk since 2004 across the
    Arctic Ocean basin. Even where the sea ice
    cover persists despite climate change in the
    region, a vast portion of the remaining ice
    layer has become thinner than it used to be,
    the new study finds.”
    Thanks for reading.

    Talking about cherry picking…

    I think this also deserves a new blog article. Let me know if you need the transcripts of the Editorials and replies that C&EN has published.

  39. Mae says:

    “the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue”

    Yes, undeniably, this stance has damaged the reputation of science and scientists but it is exactly this incomprehensible intolerance towards skepticism that made me question the validity of AGW a few months ago.

    On RealClimate a paper was discussed on the climate’s sensitivity towards CO2 and I realised, reading the comments, that there was much uncertainty and disagreement present in contemporary climate science (as you would expect in a discipline as young and complex).

    However, readers quoting dissenting papers on the subject were continuously attacked, even though their arguments merited discussion not scorn, but then again, this was the blogosphere not debating society. What surprised me was the fact that the authors of those dissenting papers themselves were subject to personal attacks and contempt – often entirely unrelated to the research dicussed. No moderation either, to remind people to stay open-minded, rational and on the science.

    That I had seen before: in East Germany, where I grew up, it was common to attack scientists who dissented from the politically accepted views in their discipline. Hard to forget the atmosphere created by such intolerance. To me these AdHoms implied the arguments supporting AGW were too shaky too cope with scientific dissent. Thus, my journey into skeptical territory began at RealClimate.

    That the AGW camp scorns skeptics, labels them with insults and habitually attacks both message and messenger is its greatest weakness, that it proclaims loudest its worst case scenarios is, ultimately, self-defeating.

    As a (former) Green Party voter, I expect the greatest damage to environmental causes to come from the AGW camp itself. That, to me, is even more tragic than the damage done to Science. Science will prevail, but I fear environmentalism will have self-harmed too much to recover easily.

    I take heart from this news about the APS but I wish the Royal Society would also remember its responsibility is to Science not politcs.

  40. Merrick says:

    crosspatch – too bad that by saying so Mencken demonstrated that unlike on many other topics he knew exactly nothing about Puritans. They were a group of people *rejecting* the “everybody needs to feel guilty all the time” teachings of Roman Catholacism and Catholic-light religions of the day like Anglicanism. If you want some educated comments on that see, for instance, C.S. Lewis who was a member of the Anglican church and no particular fan of Puritanism (his parody Pilgrim’s Regress, for example) but at least speaks in a scholarly and honest manner about Puritans and what they actually stood for.
    At this point someone is certain to bring up the witch trials. It is particularly notable in the American/Puritan experience not because it is an example of Puritan intolerance (as it is always claimed) but because it was an abberant episode completely counter to the rest of the Puritan experience. If one wants to be honest (unlike Mencken is this case) one would first do the research to determine the reaction of the broader Puritan community once word of this event became widely known – and how *completely* unique the episode was in America. One might then look at witch trials and killings occurring in Europe in the same century. A useful internet search term to get one started might be “Bell, Book, and Candle” – a colorful phrase from Europe’s (non/anti Puritan) witch-hunt past that inspired the famous Kim Novak / Jimmy Stewart movie.

  41. Merrick says:

    Oops. My apologies to crosspatch. My previous comment should be addressed to Brandon Dobson.

  42. Dan Hughes says:

    The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) have produced a General Position Statement:

    http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/NewsPublicPolicy/GovRelations/PositionStatements/17971.pdf

  43. Rhys Jaggar says:

    This story has all the resonance of white South African men in about 1994 finally realising that sex with black women might be quite enjoyable…….. anathema to mention it for decades before and financial and societal ostracism if one had partaken in it, of course…..

    Thing is: there is no scientific data which says that children of mixed race engage in runaway social criminality, nor that they lose fertility at the age of 16, nor that they suffer terribly both in hot weather and cold weather (well actually that might be true at the margins, you know!)

    Nor is there any data which suggests that partaking in sex with black women is any less enjoyable than doing likewise with white women, is there?

    Not that I am comparing the Global Warming brigade with the enlightened Afrikaaners of the 1970s and 1980s.

    After all, global warmers subscribe to the belief that the way climate is going will make ‘those damn kaffirs’ BETTER ABLE to stay in temperature equilibrium with Mother Nature, eh?

  44. simon abingdon says:

    Thank you noaaprogrammer. We have a new slogan: “The $cience is settled”!

  45. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ crosspatch (00:26:00) : “The most expensive scam ever to be played on the population of the world is about to be undone. There is a lot at stake for a lot of people, I hope it doesn’t get too nasty but when people have careers and reputations to defend, ethics can quickly go out the window.”

    I agree with your sentiments, but I’m not so sure about the scam being “undone”. What I hear between the lines from the supporters of Cap&Trade, aka Waxman-Markey, and related is :

    “Yeah, we know that AGW is bunk, but what are you going to do to stop us from using it to tax you into oblivion, and control your lives? Riot? Overthrow the government? Go ahead and try it. You skeptics will just be ground into dust regardless.”

    This whole business ceased being about logic and science when the rich and powerful figured out it could be used to acquire hitherto unobtainable wealth and political power. It’s obvious when even those political animals and CEO’s who strenuously object to things like Waxman-Markey seek not to burn and bury it, but to “compromise and modify” it. The general population will still get screwed in the end.

  46. ralph ellis says:

    >>>Nature … used to have scientific scruples but no
    >>>longer has any use for such, preferring to cast aside
    >>>science and adopt a hysterical, a-scientific tone.

    Not half as bad as New Scientist, I’m sure. They have become the para-military wing of Greenpeace, and nothing that may be contrary to AGW or PC Green issues will ever grace its pages.

    How did we get taken over quite so comprehensively – in all departments?

    .

  47. peter naegele says:

    How sad is it that there is a need for this to be said. The abuse of the scientific method by global warming alarmists has nearly silenced all debate on the issue. From calls of heresy to hopes of natural disasters to further their cause, it is evident that the believers in this nonsense are willing to do anything to protect their sacred beliefs.

    When science becomes agenda based, it is no longer science, it is more akin to a conspiracy theory.

  48. Vincent says:

    Why should these physicists be the only ones to offer a reworded statement for the APS? I have prepared one of my own which we can all agree on, and I humbly submit for consideration.

    New Policy of the APS:

    “The presence of dark energy throughout the universe is changing the order of matter in ways that will affect the earth and its inhabitants. Dark energy comprises 80% of the mass of the universe and works in ways that oppose the force of gravity causing the universe to expand. Positive feedback leads to increased forcing of the dark energy that leads to greater rate of expansion that leads to ever higher forcing. A tipping point will be reached where the expansion becomes unstoppable: first stars will be ripped from galaxies, then planets from their stars, then atmospheres from planets, rocks from the ground and even atoms from rocks.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Big Rip is occuring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the earths physical and ecolological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce either the quantity or the effects of dark energy.

    The APS urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its members to support policies and actions that will lead to less dark energy, and for that which remains to be rendered harmless by astro engineering.

    This is the consensus of the APS. “

  49. Peter Taylor says:

    On the issue of journals. science, suppression and all that – as a Brit, I have a long standing admiration for the APS. It was the first organisation of scientists that broke ranks with the collusion over nuclear reactor ‘safety’ studies – leading to the Rasmussen Report in 1976 that made public the potential consequences of a melt-down. In the UK we were able to use this study to lever out secret studies done here, and in Germany, Sweden etc., and these contributed to a more rational assessment of nuclear risks. By 1978, I was able to publish an opinion piece in Nature, and within another 10 years, even in Nuclear Engineering International! The UK Royal Commission of 1976 also owed a debt to APS and Rasmussen.

    Thirty years on it is heartening to see the APS publishing Monckton and now instigating a review. I will write to them offering my own review of climate science which has recently been published by a small independent publishing house – my usual publisher, the environmental specialists Earthscan, turned down the manuscript because it criticised the IPCC, and despite it being a meta-analysis, said they would only consider it if it’s arguments were published in a peer-reviewed climate journal (that takes a while – but I am working in it – such reviews are usually of course commissioned and from acknowledged experts in the field – where I am a science-policy analyst).

    With regard to New Scientist – I have had material published by them several times in the past – when they were more radical – but two years ago an article I sent for consideration was turned down (as too scientific!) – only for the issues (on solar science and climate) to be taken up by their own journalists and given a ‘warmist’ spin – I was shocked. I have another article with them right now – and if the same thing happens, I will make waves – there are a lot of scientists getting very fed up with the level of suppression and spin in this climate debate.

    There are some positive signs. I had a long article in the Western Daily Press – a significant regional newspaper, warning of the cooling and criticising the MetOffice predictions (Hadley is located nearby!) – and major land-owning organisations such as the National Trust, and journals such as Permaculture, have asked me to writel appraisals of the science and policy implications of potential cooling as a balance to the normal sources of information.

    Of course – if ENSO continues to build, it will be a few more years before we will get much revision from the Royal Society. Arctic warming is also not helping – there are some very warm spots as well as some cold ones – but it would also appear that we are well into a shift in the AMO/NAO phases of the Atlantic, and the MetOffice will have to own up that they have TWO models – the one that DEFRA and Oxford University’s climate impacts group publicised – that expects long-term warming of 4 degrees (give or take 3) in the UK by 2050!!! and the other is kept under wraps (until after Copenhagen) – and is the MID RANGE model (to 2030) which builds in the AMO (after Keenlyside and their own modellers’ papers) – and this predicts COOLING (temporary, of course, because thereafter AGW returns with a vengeance!).

    The MetOffice are only working with ocean cycles and not solar magnetics (too controversial to model!) and so have nothing to say about a potential Maunder Minimum.

    So – things are beginning to move here, but slowly. Having written the book, I now intend to lobby my former friends in Greenpeace, FOE, WWF and the RSPB – as members of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. I will simply ask that they accept an invitation to review the science and think independently – but I don’t expect that to happen before Copenhagen!

  50. Ron de Haan says:

    At least we now know what 79 billion of Government funding can buy you!

  51. Jimmy Haigh says:

    ralph ellis (05:26:59) :

    “How did we get taken over quite so comprehensively – in all departments?”

    I often ask the same question. I was at University in Scotland from 1985 to 1989. During that time the oil price crashed. Academic funding had been continously cut by Thatcher’s government (yes – her again) since she got into power in 1979. A further source of funding – certainly in the earth sciences – was from the oil companies. This source of funding stopped in 1986 because of the oil price crash. Along came Hansen and his Venusian greenhouse and academia jumped on the bandwagon big style. I remember talking to one of my fellow students at the time about this guy Hansen. The said student has gone on to have a successful academic career having completed a PhD on carbon sequestration.

    My own career has been in the oil industry. I always say to warmers when they jump on the fact that I am in the oil business (and therefore in the pay of ‘big oil’) that I would have made a much better living over the years had I ridden the green bandwagon since day one. I had the chance but it just didn’t appeal to me: I thought it was all a load of crap then and I still do.

  52. Smokey says:

    Merrick (04:17:56),

    Right about the Puritans. People routinely confuse the Puritans and the Pilgrims. They were very different.

    The Pilgrims arrived with visions of a utopian communist society dancing in their heads. Everyone would work the fields, and share in the bounty.

    But there was no bounty. The resentment of hard workers toward the more lazy was corrosive, since everyone shared equally in what was produced. But not enough was produced because the energetic workers lost their incentive when they saw layabouts getting the same benefits.

    The result was that the Pilgrim colony almost died out the first year. Their last ditch conversion to capitalist incentives saved what was left of them, but the few remaining eventually dispersed. Nothing was left of the Pilgrim colony, and they made no lasting impression on America. People remember Thanksgiving, and their funny hats and shoes with the buckles. But in fact, Pilgrims were a complete failure.

    The Puritans, on the other hand, were successful from the start. The Puritan ethic was the seed planted that made America so successful. Puritans believed that a man’s success came from his own hard work, and that he should benefit. If a man didn’t work he didn’t eat, not because the colony lacked food, but because each received the fruits of his individual labor.

    Puritans were not a dour, unhappy lot, as is frequently portrayed. They were outgoing, lusty, hard working refugees who came to America to escape religious persecution. They were consummate businessmen with strict moral standards

    America today can be better understood in the Puritan context. Puritans were hard working capitalists, and unlike communism, capitalism produces great wealth. The other side of the coin is that the Puritan morality was imposed on everyone. We see that today, where moral crusades are used by green groups, communists [same-same] and politicians for leverage, because the ingrained culture of Puritan morality is part of the American character.

    For better or worse, the Puritan ethic had an enormous influence on succeeding generations, while the Pilgrims came and went, leaving no lasting imprint.

  53. This item is a good opportunity to renew my thanks to so many wattsupwiththat readers who were kind enough to write to the APS when it was mistreating my reviewed article on climate sensitivity, whose conclusion that climate sensitivity is <1 K at CO2 doubling continues to be borne out both by subsequent papers in the peer-reviewed literature and events in the real climate. Here is my suggestion for a revised APS climate-change policy statement:

    "Farms, industries, and transportation emit greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. While some warming may result, catastrophe is unlikely.

    "Global air temperature has been rising for 300 years, static for 14, falling for 8. Ocean temperature has also been falling for at least five years. Recent temperatures and rates of change are unexceptional. The past four interglacials, most of the past 10,000 years, and the Bronze-Age, Medieval, and Roman warm periods were warmer than today.

    "Instrumental temperatures disclose no anthropogenic signal. Nature is the principal cause of decadal or centennial climate change. Climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2 enrichment is small, harmless, and beneficial.

    "Computer models are instructed to be over-sensitive to greenhouse gases. In any event, models can never reliably project climate. The anthropogenic greenhouse-warming signature they project in the tropical upper troposphere is not observed.

    "Therefore, the APS urges a balanced, objective scientific effort to understand natural and human effects on climate, and to provide new technologies to mitigate future warming or cooling, however caused."

  54. Peter Taylor says:

    Additionally – to Alan the Brit!!

    I have come to an accommodation with the way US sceptics (the bloggers at least) view politics in Europe – which is that socialists/marxists/greenies/lefties and even fascists are all lumped together and given various interchangeable labels – I realise that the US has never had any regime from which it could learn to tell the difference!

    However – Alan, you have no such excuse! We have to do better than label what is happening as ‘red-under-the-bed’ as a lead writer did a few days ago in the Times. We are dealing with a new phenomenon and it needs some up-to-date sociological analysis, not outworn and misleading labels.

    What we are dealing with is both new and old. The tendencies are old. But these have a new face. We are seeing an alliance of Green Party/environmental activists like Greenpeace, FOE/world development organisations such as Oxfam and Christian Aid/ the left-liberal press/the science institutions/and oddly, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF and even the Woodland Trust – all supporting the evangelists such as Al Gore who rally the youth movement – and of course, now, the business and banking world who see the benefits of carbon trading. This diverse set of ‘interests’ has a monolithic faith in UN science. There is also a quasi-religious element relating to ‘save the planet’, as well as suppress the heretics (and this has some very dark undertones relating to how democracy will not deliver us from the evil of climate change). Governments then respond and ally with this powerful coalition of interests.

    The opponents – the sceptics or deniers, appear to be supported largely by ‘right-wing’ defenders of low taxation and free markets with business as usual, who argue that truth is on their side (as I suspect it is where climate science is concerned), and this of course, antagonises the AGW camp and causes them to close ranks even more and not listen to rational argument.

    I am not going to argue on this blog that ‘business as usual’ is already straining human support systems – but will certainly argue that it will not provide the very necessary adaptation that future climate change requires of us if we are to protect the most vulnerable sections of society (in the UK and globally) – most especially as oil becomes expensive and cooling deepens (maybe).

    We need less labelling and more discourse on both sides of this fence – at least here on the sceptic side, there is a willingness to engage in that discourse and to examine the science in a critical and rational manner – thank Goodness, otherwise, I would feel very isolated in my work.

  55. goodspkr says:

    It appears AGW is dying a death of a 1000 cuts.

  56. JamesG says:

    Why do they have to have any statements at all? Have they released a statement about anything else – nuclear proliferation, for example?

  57. Jimmy Haigh says:

    peter naegele (06:02:38) :

    “How sad is it that there is a need for this to be said. The abuse of the scientific method by global warming alarmists has nearly silenced all debate on the issue. From calls of heresy to hopes of natural disasters to further their cause, it is evident that the believers in this nonsense are willing to do anything to protect their sacred beliefs.”

    Very true. I’ve just experimented with a couple of posts on Tamino’s website. All I said was that I agree with what Richard Lindzen wrote. It was like being attacked by a rabid pack of wolves! There’s no chance of having a civilised debate over there.

  58. David L. Hagen says:

    For the Climate Red Team report see:
    Climate Change Reconsidered
    the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

    Anthony notes:

    The 880-page report, released June 2nd, 2009 at an international meeting in Washington DC of scientists and policy experts, rigorously critiques the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases. The science behind that conclusion is soundly refuted in Climate Change Reconsidered, coauthored by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso.

  59. UK Sceptic says:

    anna v – agree with you 100%!

    Phillip Bratby – thanks for the link, that letter was brilliant and not a single word was wasted. Can’t wait to see the reply. As I was reading, a catchphrase from the immortal Corporal Jones (the old geezer from Dad’s Army) sprang to mind, “They don’t like it up ‘em!” :D

  60. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Jimmy Haigh (06:56:13) :

    “It was like being attacked by a rabid pack of wolves!”

    And the wolves are virtually all anonymous too!

  61. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Peter Taylor (06:43:49) :

    Good analysis. I made a post before that it’s the first time that the rent-a-mob lot have been on the side of the establishment! WUWT?

  62. Bill Sticker says:

    Mae (03:47:42)

    “As a (former) Green Party voter, I expect the greatest damage to environmental causes to come from the AGW camp itself. That, to me, is even more tragic than the damage done to Science. Science will prevail, but I fear environmentalism will have self-harmed too much to recover easily.”

    Likewise.

  63. brazil84 says:

    “It appears AGW is dying a death of a 1000 cuts.”

    It does seem like there are a lot of cracks in the dam. If the APS changes its official stance, I would say it’s an important step.

    Normally when “global warming” is debated online and elsewhere, the fallback position of the warmists is the “consensus” argument. The main underpinning of this argument is that some huge list of scientific societies have issued statements endorsing global warming.

    Of course there are two serious weaknesses in this argument: First, that most of these consensus statements don’t actually endorse “global warming” as supported by the likes of Al Gore. Second, that these statements don’t necessarily represent the views of all the members of these organizations. They might not even represent the majority view.

    But still, it would be nice if a few of these organizations took a more skeptical stance.

  64. Enduser says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (23:00:54) :

    A small analogy wrt the recent AGW Hub-Bub…

    “Well, I went out yesterday and it was quite cool, and then today it was much warmer, so I said to myself – well that’s a trend isn’t it. It’s just going to like – get so much hotter!

    So I picked up my hand saw and chopped my left leg off, because I figured that I just had to do something about it…”

    Well at least you did something. If there was even the slightest chance of your dire prediction coming true, inaction would have been foolish.

  65. imeditatenow says:

    Experts say there is a problem. Now some others say there is no problem. I’m no expert. The question is, is the earth getting warmer because of human activity, and will that cause climate change that is problematic? I do happen to be pragmatic.

  66. David Abrams says:

    ““It was like being attacked by a rabid pack of wolves!”

    I made one comment on Tamino’s blog which didn’t make it through their moderation system.

    As I recall, he had some post saying there was like a 90% chance of a new global surface temperature record by the end of 2012. I offered to bet a thousand dollars that the record would NOT be broken.

    I don’t see any legitimate reason to censor such a comment.

  67. Jennifer Hubbard says:

    Here’s a prediction: when the whole AGW scenario finally falls apart it will be be eagerly analysed by historians of science to explain how enlightened scientists fell once more into a eugenics-style delusion. The”get-rich on the backs of the poor” actions by businesses that have moved to take advantage of carbon trading will enable academics to portray this entire episode as a vast right-wing conspiracy. Big-business investment to take advantage of AGW, in fact, may offer AGW supporters a back-door route to distance themselves from their former stance.

  68. simon abingdon says:

    JamesG (06:54:48) ” The Executive Board of the American Physical Society is concerned that in this period of unprecedented scientific advance, misguided or fraudulent claims of perpetual motion machines and other sources of unlimited free energy are proliferating. Such devices directly violate the most fundamental laws of nature, laws that have guided the scientific progress that is transforming our world”.

  69. It’s good to see that scientific communities are coming to their senses and realizing that the “consensus” school on Global Warming and Climate Change is incompatible with the notion of science itself. Science is about the the constant, comparative evaluation of competing bits of data and evidence to change our mind about the way the physical world works. Saying “the debate is over because we have a consensus” is like saying “science is dead.”

  70. J.Hansford says:

    Good on them…. Now, to roll back the politics of AGW and get politicians to abandon these crazy CO2 taxes and trading schemes…. We gotta defund these mad environmentalists…. Before they destroy our economies and society.

  71. Jason S. says:

    Watch out for the ol’ double back/ outflank maneuver. I fear the day proponents of AGW start using the same logical tone Watts & Team use.

  72. Nogw says:

    This is hopeful. Too long time the world has been subjected to a climate conspiracy which will be, surely, the object of study in the future, not only of physical sciences specialists but in special of psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists.

  73. RACookPE1978 says:

    28 07 2009
    Monckton of Brenchley (06:41:04) :

    This item is a good opportunity to renew my thanks to so many wattsupwiththat readers who were kind enough to write to the APS when it was mistreating my reviewed article on climate sensitivity, whose conclusion that climate sensitivity is <1 K at CO2 doubling continues to be borne out both by subsequent papers in the peer-reviewed literature and events in the real climate. Here is my suggestion for a revised APS climate-change policy statement:

    "Farms, industries, and transportation emit greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. While some warming may result, catastrophe is unlikely.

    ….

    We thank you for your support, your efforts towards truth and the exposure of propaganda and exaggeration, and your courage in discussing the issue while too many others hide.

    A comment though – or, recommendation more properly. I would add an additional sentence to the effect that" "Today's rising CO2 levels, only a small fraction of which are man-made, are directly responsible for increasing all plant life on Earth by factors between 12 to 27 percent: More hardy plants, growing faster and yielding stronger stems, roots, and flowers will produce more food, fodder, fuel, and feedstock for all the world's populations of men, mammals, fish and birds. These naturally rising CO2 levels and a slightly warming climates pose no threats, only benefits to man and the earth, in future centuries."

  74. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Jason S. (08:36:30) :

    “Watch out for the ol’ double back/ outflank maneuver. I fear the day proponents of AGW start using the same logical tone Watts & Team use.|”

    In my experience, I don’t think we need to ‘worry’ about this ever happening…

  75. Mark_K says:

    Just amazing isn’t it that while Relativity is still a theory, AGW is an incontrovertible fact.

  76. Pamela Gray says:

    One of the ways a warmer responds to reasoned arguments against their belief is to regroup and retrench. An internal review is one of the ways that retrenchment occurs. After a period of navel watching that meets the standard for length of review time, a nice public media-ready statement can be made that says, in so many words, that “a second bias-free review was made of the prevailing and current literature on climate change and resulted in our call for renewed effort to limit CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions”.

  77. Leon Brozyna says:

    *gasp*

    You mean, the science isn’t settled?

    Oh dear, what is this world coming to? Next thing you know, Al Gore will go to make a speech and nobody will come!

  78. Gary Pearse says:

    The second most refreshing thing about this new APS stance is that deacons of AGW, like Joel Shore, Leland Palmer and a host of others haven’t polluted the thread and expanded it to double or three times usual. It also says something about duplicitnous and scientific integrity that not a single one has come forward to jump all over APS for lacking the fortitude to carry on the good fight. Comon guys, where is your self respect letting APS get a pass when the future of the world is on the edge of extinction.

  79. David L. Hagen says:

    One of the APS signers, Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, presented before congress: Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ ‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’
    See: William Happer Testimony

  80. Reed Coray says:

    To paraphrase the old saying: “The longer they (the APS, RS, BBC, etc.) wait, the longer the public ridicule”, which in a way is kind of sad — earned, but sad.

  81. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Monckton of Brenchley (06:41:04) :

    May I also extend my gratitude to you Sir! Keep up the good work old boy!

    (Jimmy Haigh, of Acharn, Loch Tayside!)

  82. Perry Debell says:

    To whom it may concern,

    Prepare to read absolute tosh from Brenda Ekwurzel, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Global warming has made it less cool.

    “The year 2009 is proving to be a yet another very inconvenient year for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As the “year without a summer” continues, the U.S. in July alone has broken over 3000 cold temperature records, and global temps have fallen .74F since Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006. In addition, meteorologists are predicting more record cold and snow this winter.

    But man-made climate fear promoters have finally constructed an explanation for the recent record cold temperatures. The environmental activist group Union of Concerned Scientists declared “Global warming made it less cool.” Brenda Ekwurzel, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, claimed in a July 24, 2009 letter to the editor in the Washington Post that “2008 was a cooler year, but global warming made it less cool.”

    H/T to Marc Morano. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2165/Climate-Fear-Promoters-Try-to-Spin-Record-Cold-and-Snow-Global-warming-made-it-less-cool

  83. Perry Debell says:

    Rupert Wyndham has an interesting background.

    From http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/04/king_versus_pre.html

    King versus President
    Brian Micklethwait (London) Russia • Science & Technology

    If you want to know why Bishop Hill is one of my favourite bloggers just now, you need look no further than this delightful posting today, which I now reproduce in its entirety:

    There’s a lovely anecdote doing the rounds of climate sceptic blogs about Sir David King, the climate alarmist and former chief scientific adviser to the British government.

    It seems that President Putin asked some of his leading scientists to meet Sir David when he went to Moscow as part of the entourage of the foreign secretary. King apparently launched into his standard spiel about how we’re all going to fry, but was a bit taken aback when the assembled scientists told him he was talking rubbish. When they had the temerity to list all the scientific evidence which refuted his claims of impending armageddon, our man was left looking a bit of a ninny and turned on his heels and stormed out of the room.

    The story is doubly interesting because it’s related by someone called RCE Wyndham in a letter in which he tells Robin Butler, the master of University College, Oxford, that the college can expect no donations from him this year because the appointment of King to head Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

    The letter can be read here.

    Fascinating. But then I googled Sir-David-King-Putin, and came across this, from about two months ago (you need to scroll down a bit):

    Sir David King, who as the Government’s Chief Scientist played a key role in the investigation into Litvinenko’s murder, has accused the Russian president of masterminding the murder of nearly 300 of his own people in the Moscow apartment bombings in 1999, which Putin blamed on Chechen terrorists.

    “I can tell you that Putin was responsible for the bombings,” Sir David claimed to Mandrake at the Morgan Stanley Great Britons Awards. “I’ve seen the evidence. There is no way that Putin would have won the election if it wasn’t for the bombings. Before them he was getting 10 per cent approval ratings. After, they shot up to 80 per cent.”

    I am not sure which came first, the mass murder accusation or the environmental ambush. I think it was the ambush that began all this. But either way, they really don’t like each other, do they?

    It might make a rather good play. It’s always best when appalling people fail to get on. Imagine what the world would be like if they were all on the same side. I know, I know, not that different.

    More can be found at;
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=R.C.E.+Wyndham&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

  84. AnonyMoose says:

    As the amount of polywater has been greatly decreasing, everyone must stop all use of regular water and purchase only polywater. This demand will create a market for the endangered polywater, save it from being lost, and create “wet” jobs which will help the global economy. Automobiles and decorative fountains must be reenginered to take advantage of the characteristics of polywater.

  85. Brandon Dobson says:

    That’s an interesting viewpoint about the Puritans, and no doubt their discipline has contributed to the fabric of society, but the quotation was referenced by Professor John Brignell merely to illustrate the leanings of proponents of global warming. Perhaps you could contact him from his web page: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/jeb/cv.htm
    and inform him how the Puritans have been unfairly characterized by Mencken. I prefer to look toward the larger picture that a grim outlook of human nature has been adopted by many extreme environmentalists, and global warming is a convenient vehicle to spread this pessimistic attitude.

    From the Hutchison Encyclopedia –
    “The Puritans were characterized by a strong conviction of human sinfulness and the wrath of God and by a devotion to plain living and hard work.”

  86. Nogw says:

    AnonyMoose (11:07:34) :Polywater?. Is it OT or not?. Are you suggesting that it could be applied in some crazy planet climate engineering project?

  87. calligraphyart says:

    Global warming brings more disaster weather.

    http://www.wavedancing.net

  88. noaaprogrammer says:

    Spam AGWers to research polywater’s use in cold fusion to solve the world’s energy problem.

  89. M. Simon says:

    Dan Hughes 04:32:31,

    I sent this to the ASME:

    What if the hysteria over CO2 is a scientific mistake? Worse, what if it is a fraud?

    The IPCC is predicting cooling until 2020. Some solar scientists and oceanographers say 2030 (based on sunspots for the solar guys and ocean circulation – PDO and ENSO etc for the oceanographers) and some of the more extreme solar predictions say a Dalton or Maunder Minimum.

    If the cooling predictions come to pass you will look bad. If fraud is found – much worse.

    We depend so much on engineering and the good reputation of engineers. You might want to reconsider having a position on CO2 (plant food). It may not be in your best long term interest.

    ==

    ASME contact page:

    http://www.asme.org/about/Offices.cfm

  90. M. Simon says:

    There is only one known source of polywater in the whole world. That is the Polywell. Fortunately the source is in America. Santa Fe, New Mexico. You can look it up. There is a person there named Nebel (fog on German) who is manning the pumps.

  91. Joel Shore says:

    Gary Pearse says:

    The second most refreshing thing about this new APS stance is that deacons of AGW, like Joel Shore, Leland Palmer and a host of others haven’t polluted the thread and expanded it to double or three times usual. It also says something about duplicitnous and scientific integrity that not a single one has come forward to jump all over APS for lacking the fortitude to carry on the good fight. Comon guys, where is your self respect letting APS get a pass when the future of the world is on the edge of extinction.

    Sorry to ruin the “second most refreshing thing” about this, but as a longstanding APS member, I do feel compelled to respond to your challenge.

    Why exactly should I be criticizing them just for deciding to review their current statement? I don’t have any particular problem with that…and, if I had to predict the most likely outcome, I would say that they will either re-affirm the current statement or make some minor modification to it. I think there is essentially not a chance in h-ll that they will adopt the alternative statement proposed in that Open Letter, which I think they will rightly dismiss as lacking any serious scientific justification.

    But, we shall see.

  92. Sez Me! says:

    It will probably not come as a surprise to those of you of serious scientific bent, that many of us laymen have viewed with alarm the apparent ‘religification’ of science over the question of “man-made-global-warming”. (OK, I made up the term ‘religification’ but it is self-explanatory, right?)

    I, as one who can barely spell the word ‘science’, have commented, blogged, and written on this global warming subject for the past 19 months. My scribblin’s are NOT scientific in nature. I look at this from another point of view altogether.

    Yet it may be that some of you really knowledgeable and brilliant folks in the sciences might do well to know how some of us ordinary folks are seeing this.
    The operative word above being “some”, since few have escaped the ‘religious fervour’ surrounding this question.

    I invite you to take a look at a recent blog of mine at

    http://scribblerlarry.wordpress.com/

    It meanders over at least one other topic, in the manner usually found in the non-scientific scribblings of the proletariat. You good gentlemen and ladies of the scientific world will be able to easily separate the wheat from the chaff, I’m sure.

    I, as a layman, would be very interested in knowing the response any of you scientists might care to make to my observations. Please make any such comment right there on that blog. Thank you……..Sez Me

  93. Smokey says:

    Brandon Dobson (13:05:41),

    Thank you for the Hutchinson quote. I believe it supports my post. It should be kept in mind that we cannot separate religion from 17th century America. To understand the context, religious attitudes must always be considered.

    Anyway, I was trying to show the difference between Pilgrims and Puritans, and how the country evolved as a result.

    I also read John Brignell’s Number Watch, and have contributed toward its upkeep. It is one of the very best sites out there, IMHO. [After WUWT, of course!]

  94. timetochooseagain says:

    Joel Shore (14:19:10) : Last chance-condemn this:

    “The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

    As wholly inappropriate from a “scientific” organization.

    Or don’t-but you will be exposed as a biased hack.

  95. I’m not a scientist, but the aspect of the global warming advocacy that has troubled me most since I first encountered it, many years ago, was the way that “consensus” undermines reason. In the public sphere science has been portrayed in a new, unhelpful way — not as a method of inquiry — but as a body of orthodox thought.

    It’s a long road back to genuine science. It’s an even longer road back to a healthy sociology of science. But at least, perhaps, one sees the first glimmers. The internet plays a huge role. It’s a new forum for the free play of ideas.

    An unseasonably cool summer in Washington, DC, is a blip on a meteorologist’s radar screen, but also must be a cloying, annoying bit of reality to those politicians currently engaged in trying to ram rod Cap and Trade down the throats of the American public.

    May we see a return to curiosity, skepticism, and knowledge admired for its own sake.

  96. norah4you says:

    I do have one question which I believe is more at hand than I thought only months ago: How many of the so called scholars who speaks for CO2 and Climate Change do you believe have studied Theories of Science more than 2-3 months?

    The more I read, the more I wonder due to the lack of knowledge of difference between facts and assumptions; due to the many circle proofs presented by person or persons who should have known that circle proofs never ever prove anything of value; due to the so many faked/corrected figures without any proof what so ever that the assumptions behind the faked figures have any water at all?

    It’s incredible to see that some even believe that they can use max and min for each day when not so long ago EVERY scholar who knew anything about temperature-changes in air and water knew that they had to take certain precausions such as reading the figures same time each day; such as checking so that the temperatures read were read at same level over ground; such as that the biotopic situations ALWAYS should be noted in order to compare not only between temperature-stations but the same type in respect of biotops; distance to sea/bigger lakes/rivers/woods; hights over sealevel etc etc.

    What I find most disturbing is the fact that I had almost double the parameters those so called scholars at best use when I in 1993 did a survey in order to find the waterways from the Baltic Sea to Lake Roxen in Östergötland, eastern Sweden, from Stone Age up to 1000 AD. Of course both I and the so called scholars haven’t the parameter of reflexe temperatures from ground. I because I didn’t need it they because the seems to in almost every paper, work etc I have read must have forgotten this for them very important parameter…..

  97. Chris Byrne says:

    CodeTech (00:23:00) :

    “$cience is AGW, trans-fat bans, DDT bans, Freon bans, unilateral nuclear disarmament, organic farms, mandatory ethanol content, $cience is what 0bamarama wants to put front and center. $cience always seems to make someone rich, even if they’ve done absolutely nothing.”

    Careful, there. Banning transfats is not political; it’s due to the fact that nobody could deny the incontrovertible evidence of the dangers of consumption, regardless of the money involved. It was the act of forcing food corporations to use transfats in the first place that was political. If you look into the history of the low fat diet movement, you will see that food corporations really had no choice BUT to use trans fats because senate committees ensured saturated fats were suddenly viewed as evil thanks to some incomplete science and vegetarian dogma that is only now being being overturned (albeit very slowly). The “consumer advocacy group”, CSPI, was the main perpetrator for pushing transfats; now, ironically, they are the ones filing lawsuits left, right and centre against companies that still use them! If you think the Pro-AGW camp is alarmist and irresponsible, you should look into the wonderful world of dietary advice and nutrition science. Sorry to go O/T, but I know a great deal more about nutrition than climate change, so I thought I’d add my two cents…

  98. T.D. Doering says:

    I’ve been amazed by the Global Warming Groups. I’m no scientist, But I do have a pretty good BS detector. And a lot of there claims and findings are contradictory. They also seen to use confusion and bamboozling to silence critics. It would appear to Me there trying to force Social/Political changes On vast groups of people, regardless if you live in a developed, underdeveloped or developing country. Hopeful more Scientists will break there silence. Stand up with Fact and Empirical Data. That would truly be a inconvenient Truth

  99. anna v says:

    It is a sad comment on the state of “science” in the west that a “deus ex machina” ( a god from the machines of backstage), in the form of natural cooling was necessary for “scientific” bodies like the APS even to start reconsidering their position. I agree with Joel that there is small probability of changing much, what about loss of face, which in the climate community seems to have reached Chinese bureaucrat proportions.

    We should not lose sight of the fact that no matter what the weather/climate is doing, there is very little contribution of the A ( anthropogenic) in Global Warming, and this is continually shown in peer reviewed papers.

  100. Karl says:

    The American Meteorological Society has a statement on “climate change.”

    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

    They are firmly in the AGW camp given the Rossby Award they bestowed on the James Hansen.

  101. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Perry Debell (10:55:10)

    “Global warming made it less cool.” Brenda Ekwurzel, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, claimed in a July 24, 2009 letter to the editor in the Washington Post that “2008 was a cooler year, but global warming made it less cool.”

    I saw this woman on one of the debates with Michael Crichton, Professor Stott and Richard Lindzen which can be found on You Tube. She didn’t impress me much. (Mind you, neither did her cohorts, one Gavin Scmidt and some bloke called Sullivan if I remember.)

    To suggest that it it’s not as cold this year as it should be due to AGW is – well – is there a word for it? I think a heap of snip is all I can come up with.

  102. timetochooseagain says:

    Jimmy Haigh (21:40:45) : This logic is however not foreign at all to politics-have you heard government officials tell you that “Yeah, unemployment is as bad as we said it wouldn’t get if we intervened, but the situation was even more dire than we thought! Just think how much worse things would be without our actions!”

    I kid you not folks, that is not only an argument which has been made, it is made any time a government program fails to achieve it’s stated goals. Faith based economics is surely a strangely irrational approach to such issues. But most of all it is a sign of how deluded people can be about the extent of their knowledge (which is, contrary to their pretensions, quite finite).

  103. Roger Knights says:

    Mencken’s opposition to Puritanism was toward its manifestation toward the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, during which time it promoted censorship, prohibition, suppression of birth control information and devices, and suppression of “vice,” primarily in crusades against toleration of red light districts, which had been generally ignored by officialdom until about 1910, and also with laws like the Mann act. Its censoriousness had inhibited fankness among American authors. Here is an entry from Wikipedia on Mencken’s essay on that topic:

    A Book of Prefaces is H. L. Mencken’s 1917 collection of essays criticizing American culture, authors, and movements. … the most outspoken essay was entitled “Puritanism as a Literary Force,” during which he alleged that William Dean Howells, Henry James, and Mark Twain were victims of the Puritan spirit.

    “The Puritan’s utter lack of aesthetic sense, his distrust of all romantic emotion, his unmatchable intolerance of opposition, his unbreakable belief in his own bleak and narrow views, his savage cruelty of attack, his lust for relentless and barbarous persecution– these things have put an almost unbearable burden up on the exchange of ideas in the United States.”

    Mencken had criticized Puritanism for many years, … but through World War I his criticism became increasingly outspoken, in part due to the rising tide of Prohibition.

  104. eric says:

    I looked on the APS web site for any news that they had chartered a committee to reexamine their position. I was unable to find this. I also was unable to find any news of such a committee, outside of the source quoted on this web site.

    If a committed is really reexamining this, why would one believe that this would result in a change. What is new since the publication of Monckton’s article in the Physics and Society Online Journal?

    Why would they overturn the consensus of peer reviewed research on Climatology if 97% of researchers accept that AGW is real and a significant factor?

  105. norah4you says:

    “eric (08:06:31) :

    ………

    Why would they overturn the consensus of peer reviewed research on Climatology if 97% of researchers accept that AGW is real and a significant factor?”

    Well maybe because there aren’t even a 70% consensus among the real scholars! Below find a Googletranslated text from SvD 2nd March 2009

    “Heading: No consensus on climate alarms
    UN climate panel, IPCC, formed in 1988 with the directive to compile research on the human impact on climate. The perspective has made concentrated efforts on a global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

    This restriction means that not enough attention of other climatic factors. We believe that the absence of evidence that climate change is not mainly due to natural causes. IPCC scenarios of how you think the climate will be developed based on computer models. The models are designed so as to moderately elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gives rise to a significant warming. With the scenarios that has, since issued, and issue alerts.

    Leading alarm lard has gone beyond the IPCC and has successfully managed to bring out the image that their claims are based on scientific consensus – a claim that can easily be display incorrectly. The development is a serious threat to the entire scientific community’s credibility.

    Our view is:

    • The fact that it could not show a significant causal link between elevated carbon dioxide content and potential climate change.

    • The fact that the observed warming during the 1900s does not give cause for concern, whatever the causes.

    • That the climate scares based on low forecast value.

    • The claim of consensus on the issue do not support.

    • That a climate policy based on the IPCC scenarios is likely to lead to a devastating waste of human and financial resources that primarily affects the poor in the world.

    Before society makes far-reaching decisions on climate policy, we should ensure to use on a sounder scientific basis than we have today. The Government should therefore initiate a hearing with a broad spectrum of representatives of the scientific community with different views on the climate issue.

    Jonny Fagerström, environmental debater

    Göran Ahlgren, Associate Professor of Organic Chemistry

    Lars Bern, former Director of the Retailer and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, formerly chairman of The Natural Step environmental research

    P-O Eriksson, the former CEO Sandvik

    Peter STILBENE, professor of physical chemistry

    Maggie Thauersköld, blog The Climate Scam

    CG Ribbing, Professor of Solid State Physics

    Gösta Walin, professor emeritus of oceanography

    Sten Kaijser, professor emeritus of mathematics

    Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography

    All representing the Stockholm Initiative, a political and economic independence network whose aim is to critically examine the climate issue and to highlight its political and economic consequences. ”

    Please observe that these scholars are wellrenomed and have so been for many years. ONLY those who tries to make a consensus belived tries to call them charlatans no matter this every Professor here have a better CV than almost all of the so called scholars.

    They aren’t alone most scholars today don’t stand behind the so called AWG. Which is understandable considering that the ‘change’ of CO2 are less than the ppm-value for oil in stone salt used to heat up ice during wintertime!

  106. eric says:

    norah4you (08:32:04) :
    The people who signed the statement you posted were not Climate Science Researchers. You had some bloggers, and scientists who do not specialize in climate science.
    Where do you get you 70% figure?

  107. “Why would they overturn the consensus of peer reviewed research on Climatology if 97% of researchers accept that AGW is real and a significant factor?”

    That’s a very unscientific measure of the real understanding of researchers about AGW, Eric. You forget to allow for all tho$e pe$ky detail$ in the $urvey.

  108. norah4you says:

    “eric (09:19:39) :

    norah4you (08:32:04) :
    The people who signed the statement you posted were not Climate Science Researchers. You had some bloggers, and scientists who do not specialize in climate science.
    Where do you get you 70% figure?”

    Eric those scholars have been working with Environmental Questions from their own subjects together with scientists and scholars from ‘Blue side’ = water and air, for many years more than the best of the scholars you on the Climate-threat side been able to put forward!

    The first scholars to do a science study regarding the Climate Change published their work in 1931 and that still holds water since every assumed consequence of natural impacts from double the number of factors than anyone every done on your side AND belive it or not – the temperature they presumed would come in 1995 worldwide is almost identical 0,1 degree difference from what you say exist today. So bad luck.

    And btw one of the scholars you dismissed Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography participated in this work from 1983:
    “Abstracts of the Second Nordic Symposium on Climatic Changes and Related Problems : Stockholm (Sweden), May 16-20 1983 / Editors: Knud Frydendahl, Wibjörn Karlén, Nils-Axel Mörner … Nordic Symposium on Climatic Changes and Related Problems (2 : 1983 : Stockholm)
    Frydendahl, Knud (utgivare)
    Karlén, Wibjörn (utgivare)
    Mörner, Nils-Axel, 1938- (utgivare)
    København : Det Danske meteorologiske institut, 1983 ”

    in 1984:
    Climatic changes on a yearly to millennial basis : geological, historical and instrumental records / ed. by N.-A. Mörner and W. Karlén Karlén, Wibjörn, 1937- (utgivare)
    Mörner, Nils-Axel, 1938- (utgivare)
    ISBN 90-277-1779-6
    Dordrecht : D. Reidel Publ. Co., cop. 1984

    in 1993
    “The earth’s climate : natural variations and human influence / Wibjörn Karlén, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Bengt Dahlström Karlén, Wibjörn, 1937- (författare)
    Dahlström, Bengt, 1939- (författare)
    Friis-Christensen, Eigil (författare)
    Alternativt namn: Christensen, Eigil Friis
    Elforsk (medarbetare)
    Alternativt namn: Svenska elföretagens forsknings- och utvecklings
    Alternativt namn: Engelska: Swedish Electrical Utilities’ R&D Company
    Verk som ingår i eller hör samman med denna titel
    Karlén, Wibjörn: Jordens klimat. (originaltitel)
    Stockholm : Elforsk, 1993 ”

    to name a few of his 32 published works…..

    the rest aren’t less competent!

  109. Stoic says:

    eric

    Surely you know that 97% of statistics quoted in arguments are invented?

  110. Smokey says:

    eric, I do not recommend that you view what the average American thinks about global warming: click

Comments are closed.