From Physics World: APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change
The American Physical Society (APS) has “overwhelmingly rejected” a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November 2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls “a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research” and took soundings from its members. “We recommended not accepting the proposal,” Kleppner told physicsworld.com. “The [APS] council almost unanimously decided to go with that.”
Different positions
The official APS position on climate change says that “emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate” and adds that there is “incontrovertible” evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. “If no mitigating actions are taken,” it says, “significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.”
However, the petition’s signatories claim that “measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20–21st century changes [in climate] are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today”. They say that various natural processes, such as ocean cycles and solar variability, could account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries.
“Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate,” the petition concludes. It also points to “extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals”.
Next steps
Although the APS council turned down the request, it has, however, agreed to one proposal from Kleppner’s committee: that the society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) should “examine the statement for improvements in clarity and tone”. Princeton University atomic physicist Will Happer, who was one of those leading the proposal for change, sees that fact as a form of vindication. “They basically sent both statements back to their committee on public affairs and asked them to reconsider,” says Happer. “I think it’s a big victory for us. Many of [the people who signed the petition] took quite a bit of risk in signing this statement.”
However, the APS firmly refutes Happer’s reading. “The council has, in effect, said we reject outright the replacement of our statement,” points out APS spokesperson Tawanda Johnson. “We are certainly not rejecting the 2007 statement. It’s still on our website. POPA reviews statements every five years; it would have come up for review anyway.”
Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS’s 47,000 members. “This is certainly not a majority opinion,” he says. “Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence.”
About the author
Peter Gwynne is Physics World‘s North America correspondent
It is very sad, because I do not think that the rest of the 47000 members examined any data. They are just on autopilot trusting on the integrity of the vocal representatives.
To get an effect the 160 should get the e-mail addresses of the 47000 and start them thinking about the subject by giving them links and clear statements. I am sure that any decent physicist will be flabbergasted at the bad science behind the AGW deal, and I am also sure that the majority of physicist are decent physicists, just human enough not to be bothered with stuff outside their field unless they stumble over it ( as has happened with me).
WOW, this tells you everything you need to know about the state of science in America.
“Many of [the people who signed the petition] took quite a bit of risk in signing this statement.”
A big risk? No dissent or skepticism allowed or there will be repercussions? This is truly scary and sad.
Well why not stick to their belief system. After all, when 46,840 of us believe the Sun orbits the Earth, it’s settled science!
Well, it is friday the 13th. 🙁
It is a shame and I advice all APS members who disagree with this laughable decission to cancel their membership immediately.
Lubos Motl wrote the following view how APS came to its conclusion:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/aps-fat-cats-stick-to-sinking-agw.html
Throw the peasants a sop.
Just another way of saying “don’t bother us with facts, the science is settled.”
The result of the vote about whether to review the statement was 27 in favor, 5 against (source: Tawanda Johnson, personal communication). One wonders why the vote was necessary, if it was coming up for review “anyway” in five years, meaning 2012.
“Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS’s 47,000 members. “This is certainly not a majority opinion,” he says. “Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence.””
Really. Or perhaps they’re too concerned about their own future prospects to speak up. As Professor Happer said, some of the people who did sign did so at great personal risk.
It is stated “Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS’s 47,000 members. “This is certainly not a majority opinion,” he says. “Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence.”
Just wondering, has it been debated and put to a vote of the society?
“This is certainly not a majority opinion,” he says. “Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence.”
Exactly what “conclusion” have most other APS physicists reached?
If they concluded that anthropogenic greenhouse gas is causing significant global warming then can they please supply the evidence or proof?
So far, nobody has been able to model the natural climate in the first place. In absence of knowing/understanding the natural climate variations (and the mechanisms behind them) it is simply a FACT that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the seriousness of the contribution of man-made greenhouse gas to global temperatures. It is also IMPOSSIBLE to know that “If no mitigating actions are taken,” it says, “significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.”
This ALL requires KNOWING the natural contributions very accurately so that the anthopogenic part can be KNOWN to be NOT negligible and KNOWN to be actually DANGEROUS.
The APS and the “majority” of its 47,000 members (the majority according to the claims of the APS committee) are SO OBVIOUSLY jumping to conclusions it is not only ludicrous and but highly embarassing.
It is downright STUPID for a scientific society to take an official position so very far out on a limb.
Oh well they will live to regret it….A lot of these organizations will be replaced if they don”t adapt to the reality of the internet and real peer review.
Doesn’t the society have measures in its bylaws to petition for a vote of the full membership?
Prof Richard Lindzen, head of MIT’s Atmospheric Sciences department, explained last November how a small group of activists, such as the six selected members of the APS Council, are able to blow off the written request of 160 members:
Dr Lindzen shows us what is happening in the APS Council. This same tactic is being used everywhere we look; it can hardly be a coincidence, considering the fact that the enviro movement owns most of Congress. Why stop there? The same people have been infiltrating the media and schools and universities across the country — and the world.
These political activists have been taught how to game the system. There is ample evidence that they are funded by foundations controlled by people like George Soros, the Tides Foundation, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, and many others like them. What is happening here is entirely political, not scientific. What is their goal? And who ultimately controls and orchestrates the hijacking of organizations like the APS?
It appears that the only means of direct democracy in the APS is to deliver a petition of 1% of the membership to the President to amend the Constitution. With 47,000 members, you will need about 1500 signatures to overcome the leadership on this issue.
In other news, our pointless environment agency is going to recommend personal carbon allowances. I wonder if this will include breathing. This is a truly frightening policy proposal.
Here’s what I would do: Get 1500 signatures on a petition to amend the Constitution to mandate that
“the APS may not adopt any public policy recommendations regarding issues not strictly pertaining to physics research and education without a full vote of the entire membership. Proposals to adopt/modify any existing public policy recommendation may be made via the same petitioning process as used to amend the APS Constitution.”
This would force a full vote of the membership on this amendment to the group constitution. Once passed you can then hold a group wide vote on AGW.
At least those 160 have their names down and will be congratulated accordingly in time for acting according to principle rather than in complicity.
Someone need to set up an alternate society, where the members can have a vote after both sides get to put forward their best case!
So, Dr Kleppner, is “almost unanimously” the other side of the “little bit pregnant” coin? How big was the committee, and how many disagreed with the committee’s findings? This kind of wording seems pre-enlightenment to a lay person like me.
Have all of your 47,000 members accepted fully the state of global warming science except for the 160 who asked you to change your acceptance, or is it the case that most of the 47,000 have done no work at all in this field? A little clarity, if you please.
Did any of the committee actually prove wrong any of the matters submitted by the 160?
Think about this situation sir. The politicians are about to destroy the economy of the world based on faulty models of the climate. Less energy use equals less food and the other requirements for human survival. Millions may die. Does your committee want to take part in these executions?
I am sure that the formation and charter for such a society as the APS is a difficult process.
So forgive my naivete here….
But what would stop these very VERY influential 160, from starting their own?? One that sticks to science and steers clear of politics.
Once started, an intensive “marketing” campaign is aimed at the 47,000 members of the APS??
Just some thoughts….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Omg..
Thats all i have to say..
Climate change and codex alimentaris, flavoured with H1N1, mixed with a little bit of war..
The New World Order
A related interview with Viscount Monckton: click
Smokey (14:31:45) :
“Dr Lindzen shows us what is happening in the APS Council. This same tactic is being used everywhere we look; it can hardly be a coincidence, considering the fact that the enviro movement owns most of Congress. Why stop there? The same people have been infiltrating the media and schools and universities across the country — and the world.
These political activists have been taught how to game the system. There is ample evidence that they are funded by foundations controlled by people like George Soros, the Tides Foundation, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, and many others like them. What is happening here is entirely political, not scientific. What is their goal? And who ultimately controls and orchestrates the hijacking of organizations like the APS?”
There are dark forces at work in the world, who want to enslave us all in the chains of a World Government. They control most of the politicians, media and many other influential organisations like the UN and the WWF.
If you want to know who these people are follow the money – and you’ll find it’s ‘old money’ people who rule the roost.
The APS position on climate change says as much about the human brain (it’s shrinking) as it does about climate change:
http://www.livescience.com/history/091113-origins-evolving.html
Okay, so that’s a lame attempt at humor.
Their dismissive statement towards the “small minority” sounds like something I’d expect to hear from the World Council of Scholars (see Ayn Rand’s Anthem)
Yes Tenuc,
We are at troubled times.. Science doesnt bother anymore.. There is a concensus in global warming. No matter how hard we fight against it..
Dont fool yourself.. We outnumber the elite by 95 to 5 %, but we are outnumbered by the 90 % programmed thinkers. (just a guess from my own experiances.)
The more i read about these subjects, the more i see the movie played in front of my eyes to blind me from the truth..
Belvedere