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
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
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
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who are the “respected senior scientists” sitting on the review sub-committee ?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
==================================
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?…”
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Oops. My apologies to crosspatch. My previous comment should be addressed to Brandon Dobson.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) have produced a General Position Statement:
http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/NewsPublicPolicy/GovRelations/PositionStatements/17971.pdf
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?
Thank you noaaprogrammer. We have a new slogan: “The $cience is settled”!
@ur momisugly 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.
>>>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?
.
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.
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. “
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!
At least we now know what 79 billion of Government funding can buy you!