Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change
From Mike Asher at the DailyTech:
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Complete article here
(h/t Fred)
UPDATE: 7/18/08 9PM PST It appears there is some discord at the APS over the issue.
The higher ups at the American Physical Society, apparently do not agree with the editor that made the initial post and reaffirms the statement on human caused global warming, posting this statement on their web site www.aps.org:
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
There has certainly been a lot of argument and rhetoric surrounding this issue, and I’ve taken a fair amount of criticism for even posting it, with one commenter exclaiming that I was “popping champagne corks” while another said that “I couldn’t wait to talk about it as a major hole in the case for doing something to clean up air pollution.” which is curious, since I never made any comments about “celebrating with champagne”, “air pollution” or “major hole in the case”.
What this story does is demonstrate how politically and emotionally charged the issue has become. And when politics, emotions, and science mix, the outcome is never good.
It seems to me that Lord M already has an established track record as a peer reviewer of the IPCC (for example, pointing out errors which caused the IPCC to change substantially its AR4 conclusions regarding sea level).
Smokey: “Brendan H adds that he is also in agreement with that amazing statement.”
Let’s recap: Monckton is invited to submit a paper to a scientific journal. On or about the day of publication, his associates publish a press release which implies that the journal’s parent body, the APS, endorses his paper, which supposedly ‘proves’ that AGW is false.
The blogosphere embellishes the press release, claiming that the APS has reversed its stance on global warming. The APS attaches a disclaimer to Monckton’s article, reiterating its acceptance of AGW. Monckton starts jumping up and down, squawking that he’s being repressed, and demanding an apology for an action he helped set in train.
I’ll give you this: the guy’s a consummate showman. However, I predict that this attempt to storm the AGW ramparts through the side door will fall flat. The shame is that he’s spoiled the prospects for other sceptics who might want to take part in these sorts of semi-official forums.
The question arose the 17th:
Does this mean Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Prize back?
Arafat, Rabin and others weren’t required to return theirs.
It means Monckton has to apologize to Gore and take a remedial physics class from Pat Frank, and a remedial ethics class from Jimmy Carter.
Twelve months ago, the case for AGW made total sense to me.
Clearly, mankind was influencing the climatic environment adversely; why not? We’d messed up environmentally before, went my thinking, so why not once again?
Sources, trusted by me from childhood, produced case-study upon case-study to underpin the evidence that supported the same depressing truth. We were, officially and indisputably, the number one enemy of the Planet.
The BBC, New Scientist and Scientific American, some of my trusted sources, were unanimous that human activity was driving a level of Global Warming that threatened the future of Earth and its inhabitants.
Sources, less trusted, reiterated the same or similar message but the conclusion was clear – AGW was an irrefutable!
I’m a year older now. My sources are still on message. I’ve read lots since then and experienced many emotions in having done so. I see many points of commonality between the middle-ground, pro and anti AGW factions- I leave the extremists views to others as I have no wish to get pulled into ad hominem or new-age religious issues (at this moment).
Middle-ground examples of agreement-:
(1) To become more energy and resource conservative.
(2) To diminish the adverse pollution of our surroundings.
(3) To develop new energy sources
(4) To use the scientific method-when explained clearly and neutrally – to seek out real problems and realistic solutions
Irrespective of stance, the common thread that unifies both sides (middle-ground) of the debate is a shared and concerned humanistic perspective that seeks to improve the future prospects of all.
(IMO -contrary to what many would have us believe, most pro agw’s are not rabid anti-globalists- and neither are sceptics – gas-guzzlin’ child eaters)
Where we differ most is not where we wish to be, but how we should get there and what dangers we should avoid to guide us there. The scientific evidence is contradictory, otherwise we’d all be on facebook rather than here, irrespective of what the nay-sayers, heretics or great-unwashed pronounce or pontificate.
What will be, will be –that is science! We shouldn’t confuse science with scientific- the former is a noun independent of our motives or emotions – the latter is an adjective which takes its meaning from whatever noun happens to be attached! EG- Scientific Evidence.
I know which side of the argument I now lean towards but I’m taking no bets about how I’ll think tomorrow. C’mon folks, open up the debate and let our best thinking beat our worst prejudices.
Tea anyone?
REPLY: Welcome Roy, well said. – Anthony
@Brendan H
Bit confused here Brendan.
Are you refuting Monckton as a serious critic because of his bad science or because you don’t like his point of view. I read his article, felt he was serious in his viewpoint, maybe his points were invalid, I don’t know.
Could you, perhaps, explain you objection to his point of view. Is it because he is not a scientist and thus is irrelevant or have I missed the point?
Thank You for you Considration
@Brendan, again sorry mate, I am a scottie so forgive
i’ve probably confused you with someone of my own invention-but propensity to rant is something i have – along with bent pinkies- i cool down quickly though and offer my apologies in advance of your justified response- sorry mate- let me rant- i’ll be fine honest
I’m a bit on your side but feel a bit annoyed that some of your fellow-supporters (and mine) have to resort to totally negative and logically dubious devices.
I refer, of course, to the unecessary artefact of attacking an individuals lack of scientific background when making an opinion about scientific matters. Lord m. he is not an accredited scientist, nor is he a discredited scientist, he is an, or was, an adviser on such matters.
He, as Al is, is no more, or less than the bullet fired by his scientific advisers. The impact, or lack of, is due to the chemistry of his propellants- his advisers.
Let us not forget that the credo of AGW was not established solely by the bullet of the IPCC but by the symbiotic chemistry of Dr Hansen et Al- the leading climatologists of our generation- but by the underpinning atomic theory of their fellow physicists, statisticians and, indeed, the whole scientific community.
To pursue an ad hominem attack track on this individual as opposed to a serious scientific demolition of his propositions undermines the whole purpose of the underlining basis of the consensus peer-review process that it has taken years to bring to the front of public view.
Please do not give the sceptics any more wriggle factor than they’ve already insinuated
No insult intended mate- Remember the truth will always out
Take care
I agree with “dreamin’s” post (18?07?08, 02:58:32) that the consensus AGW statements (a) are wishy-washy, (b) will eventually be revealed to be a hoax, and (c) there is a “bait and switch” effort underway. Take, for example, the APS statement regarding greenhouse gases, human activity, and the earth’s climate:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
Talk about a “tap-dancing” statement. If significant AGW global warming turns out to be correct (something I very much doubt), the APS can say “See, we told you so.” If significant AGW global warming turns out to be just so much “hot air”, then APS can say: “We never said that anthropogenic generated greenhouse gases were a major problem, only that they had an effect on the climate.” The APS wants to have and eat its cake. Bottom line, the APS statement is so nebulous as to be meaningless, which may portend the public’s perception of the APS in the near future.
Reed Coray