American Physical Society reviewing its climate stance

Ah, wonderful news.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Moderator “A” (Anthony?)… Done! I hope my signature will pass. Thanks a lot! 🙂
[Reply: Yes, “A” is Anthony. ~dbstealey, mod.]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?…”

“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.

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?

@ 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.

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.

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!

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

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!” 😀

“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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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."

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

*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!

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

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

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.”

Global warming brings more disaster weather.
http://www.wavedancing.net

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

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.

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.

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…

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.

“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!

“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.

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