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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.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.
Jim B
It’s 1:33PM Pacifist Coast Time 🙂
I don’t see that you’ve added anything. The only dissenting comment is from the petroleum gang.
Does this mean Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Prize back?
Let him keep it. It’s as if it’s for science, after all. It’s just the Nobel Beauty Prize.
Your joy is premature. Go to the APS website ( http://www.aps.org/) and you will find this statement:
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
From the AGW “crack-plaster” article:
“Conclusion: Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.”
1) Earth “was” getting warmer. You can only say it “is” getting warmer, if you are talking about the period that involved SS21, SS22, and SS23. Before that it was cooling. This does not give support to AGW, and does support the warming as natural in origin.
2) “The models predict”. The models do not even model clouds, and have a very primative design to represent the oceans. The models do NOT predict anything. They run scenerios that are not relevent to the real world. They model a world that is a simplified version of the one we live in. Do we demonize an essential trace gas, because of models?
3) “Prove a physical mechanism”. In other words: We can’t prove ours, but we reject any other until it is proven. Now there is the scientific method in action. I hate to think of where our society would be, if this was the prevailing thought process for all scientific inquiry.
4) “Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.” But correlation is still superior to non-correlation. I think most would agree with that, and while it does not prove causality, it does imply a linkage that supports the contention.
RE: Paul Shanahan (10:33:06) :
“Does this mean Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Prize back?”
Remember, the Nobel Prize issued to Gore and the IPCC is a political prize and does not relate to scientific achievement. I do hope if fraud or negligence is established that the political prize is withdrawn.
Raven,
Did you look at the date on the story in your link?..November 2007.
If anyone’s having difficulty getting to the Daily Tech site to read the article it may be because the Drudge Report has a posting about it.
Also, the main home site of the APS has issued a disclaimer:
http://www.aps.org/
Nevertheless, it’s a start.
The original web article at DailyTech which I read about 2 hours ago is now gone.
I returned to print it for a friend and the link is broken!
Very interesting….
It now appears to be back online……
“REPLY: like I said in the post and is clear from the Daily Tech article, the EDITOR has changed position.”
A couple of comments by the editor are relevant here: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC…
And “Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change…”
One of an editor’s responsibilities is to respond to the concerns of its readers. In opening up scientific debate on global warming, Jeffrey Marque is doing just that. However, in the editorial he makes no comment about his own position on AGW. Therefore, the headline: “APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming” is not supported by the evidence.
Why is it that NASA, which is devoted to exploration and research in space, only uses ground-measured data in their global temperature evaluation?
Today, I’m quite proud to be a physicist. But I’m not surprised. Physicists are always the trouble makers. Some may remember that it was Lord Blackett who was among the first to dare present evidence against fixed continents, with his measurements of magnetic field in rocks. That was the first crack that would lead to the plate tectonics theory. Continental drift was anathema at the time, and only his Nobel prize prestige allowed him to publish his findings. By a strange twist of history, he was also among the discoverers of cosmic rays, which some now think may play a role in climate. Funny too that the first major proponent of continental drift was a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener who, by the way, froze to death in Greenland.
I note too that the Canadian Journal of Physics ran an editorial favorable to skeptics, or at least skepticism, a couple of years ago (sorry can’t find the link any more).
Brendan H:
In the past, the prevailing view of the APS was that there can be no debate. Now there is a debate in the APS. That is the position that has changed. In other words, there is an admission that there is no consensus anymore.
Unfortunately this won’t reach the mainstream media . There is too much money at stake , too many corrupt scientists ( 2,000 ?) conspiring with their media cronies. Their ringleader Al has 300 million tied up in it.
The best hope we have is to just keep doing what we’re doing , spreading the real truth by word of mouth, this always prevails. Thanks to Anthony and his blog and his surfacestations.org project. I’m just a self employed ex- pro football player in Canada doing his part to spread the word. I point this blog out to people because I think it points out very critical mistakes about how temperature is measured, and when your only getting 0.5 degree increase in 100 years there’s a lot of room for error. How good is the equipment ? How sober is the reader? How far away is the equipment from an A/C exhaust vent?
Brent in Calgary
Its an important start. There is an admission of doubt creeping in.
Juan (14:05:48) :
RE: Paul Shanahan (10:33:06) :
“Does this mean Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Prize back?”
Remember, the Nobel Prize issued to Gore and the IPCC is a political prize and does not relate to scientific achievement. I do hope if fraud or negligence is established that the political prize is withdrawn.
In a backwards way, Gore & Co have done a lot for Science, after all, if it wasn’t for his Amway style of bring AGW to the table, I doubt we would know as much (or little in the grand scheme) as we do now. I’ll give him credit for that, but I’d still take his prize back! 🙂
“Never mind the fact that the editor’s comment is stating the stance of the APC in their newsletter.”
I think the editor is using “we” to refer his group of editors, and not referring to the APC as “we”.
Just a thought.
If a “person of stature” such as the head of a prestigious scientific organization or the editor of a scientific journal stated a position on a “controversial issue” and is then proven to have been sucked in by a hoax, his reputation is nothing but do-do. (A scientific term)
If it does turn out that AGW has been a massive hoax, there will be a large number of “scientists” who gave a “learned opinion” about a subject that they knew nothing. And they will be known as little more than hysterical fools.
For Example: Every issue of the National Geographic has a story on “The Horrors of AGW”. If it is a hoax, who will ever again trust the National Geographic or the editor? The main stream media will skate because they are not expected to know anything about anything. They just breathlessly repeat the words spoken by “learned people”.
Any change is going to come very slowly.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
When I have a chance in a few weeks, I plan to challenge the current stance of the chemistry journal, C&E News, that seems to have been hijacked by the pro-AGW crowd. They have featured several articles in the past few months that were essentially press releases by Hansen. None of the chemists that I talk to believe the feedback mechanism for CO2 is correct.
As for wikipedia, I have a hypothesis that these editors who constantly monitor these pages must be getting paid to do it. Soros perhaps?
“Also, the main home site of the APS has issued a disclaimer:
http://www.aps.org/”
interesting disclaimer – it claims that the forums all have a posted ‘this does not constitute the policy of the APS’ warning, but I can’t find it. I suspect it doesn’t really apply to editors pronouncements either….
In any case, that sounds like a seriously pissed off APS. Look for a lot of back-pedalling, followed by a change of editor on that forum shortly. This is obviously not a planned floating of a possible change of policy!
Boris says:
“No he doesn’t. That’s the point. He makes a huge deal out of the “CO2 fingerprint,” but he has merely misread a figure from the IPCC report. ”
Well, the IPCC did a lousy job of explaining those figures, because at first glance, that’s exactly what they seem to be implying. Also, since any warming would produce a hot spot, the presence of one would not “prove” AGW, but the lack of one proves no AGW, according the IPCC’s interpretation of the PCM outputs.
I applaud Monckton’s efforts.
I sent the APS information to Jon McComb at my local radio station CKNW 98. He interviewed Lord Monckton for approximately 20 minutes this afternoon. You can listen to the interview here:
http://www.cknw.com/StationShared/AudioVault.aspx
Select Thursday July 17 and 3 PM. The interview starts at approximately 35:30.
“Also, since any warming would produce a hot spot, the presence of one would not “prove” AGW, but the lack of one proves no AGW”
No one says a hotspot proves AGW. Stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of an enhanced greenhouse effect that has been observed.
If there is no hotspot then that means that basic theory is wrong–specifically the wet adiabatic lapse rate. It’s more likely that sparse coverage and short records in the dataset are responsible. But even if that particular aspect of theory is wrong, it would not mean that AGW is wrong at all.
OK Boris, rather than simply assert, without presenting any evidence that Monkton misunderstood the IPCC. Why not tell us where and how Monkton has misinterpreted?
Otherwise, it just looks the standard AGW believer tactic of making a claim without good or even any supporting evidence.
And no throwing out a bunch of irrelevant links, in the hope people don’t read them or can’t understand them. That’s a cheap and dishonest tactic, and I am thoroughly tired off it.
Give us chapter and verse. A link to a page that does so is acceptable.
OMG this story is on the Drudge Report! Maybe there is hope!