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
One of the ways a warmer responds to reasoned arguments against their belief is to regroup and retrench. An internal review is one of the ways that retrenchment occurs. After a period of navel watching that meets the standard for length of review time, a nice public media-ready statement can be made that says, in so many words, that “a second bias-free review was made of the prevailing and current literature on climate change and resulted in our call for renewed effort to limit CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions”.
*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!
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.
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
To paraphrase the old saying: “The longer they (the APS, RS, BBC, etc.) wait, the longer the public ridicule”, which in a way is kind of sad — earned, but sad.
Monckton of Brenchley (06:41:04) :
May I also extend my gratitude to you Sir! Keep up the good work old boy!
(Jimmy Haigh, of Acharn, Loch Tayside!)
To whom it may concern,
Prepare to read absolute tosh from Brenda Ekwurzel, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Global warming has made it less cool.
“The year 2009 is proving to be a yet another very inconvenient year for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As the “year without a summer” continues, the U.S. in July alone has broken over 3000 cold temperature records, and global temps have fallen .74F since Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006. In addition, meteorologists are predicting more record cold and snow this winter.
But man-made climate fear promoters have finally constructed an explanation for the recent record cold temperatures. The environmental activist group Union of Concerned Scientists declared “Global warming made it less cool.” Brenda Ekwurzel, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, claimed in a July 24, 2009 letter to the editor in the Washington Post that “2008 was a cooler year, but global warming made it less cool.”
H/T to Marc Morano. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2165/Climate-Fear-Promoters-Try-to-Spin-Record-Cold-and-Snow-Global-warming-made-it-less-cool
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
As the amount of polywater has been greatly decreasing, everyone must stop all use of regular water and purchase only polywater. This demand will create a market for the endangered polywater, save it from being lost, and create “wet” jobs which will help the global economy. Automobiles and decorative fountains must be reenginered to take advantage of the characteristics of polywater.
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.”
AnonyMoose (11:07:34) :Polywater?. Is it OT or not?. Are you suggesting that it could be applied in some crazy planet climate engineering project?
Global warming brings more disaster weather.
http://www.wavedancing.net
Spam AGWers to research polywater’s use in cold fusion to solve the world’s energy problem.
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
There is only one known source of polywater in the whole world. That is the Polywell. Fortunately the source is in America. Santa Fe, New Mexico. You can look it up. There is a person there named Nebel (fog on German) who is manning the pumps.
Gary Pearse says:
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.
It will probably not come as a surprise to those of you of serious scientific bent, that many of us laymen have viewed with alarm the apparent ‘religification’ of science over the question of “man-made-global-warming”. (OK, I made up the term ‘religification’ but it is self-explanatory, right?)
I, as one who can barely spell the word ‘science’, have commented, blogged, and written on this global warming subject for the past 19 months. My scribblin’s are NOT scientific in nature. I look at this from another point of view altogether.
Yet it may be that some of you really knowledgeable and brilliant folks in the sciences might do well to know how some of us ordinary folks are seeing this.
The operative word above being “some”, since few have escaped the ‘religious fervour’ surrounding this question.
I invite you to take a look at a recent blog of mine at
http://scribblerlarry.wordpress.com/
It meanders over at least one other topic, in the manner usually found in the non-scientific scribblings of the proletariat. You good gentlemen and ladies of the scientific world will be able to easily separate the wheat from the chaff, I’m sure.
I, as a layman, would be very interested in knowing the response any of you scientists might care to make to my observations. Please make any such comment right there on that blog. Thank you……..Sez Me
Brandon Dobson (13:05:41),
Thank you for the Hutchinson quote. I believe it supports my post. It should be kept in mind that we cannot separate religion from 17th century America. To understand the context, religious attitudes must always be considered.
Anyway, I was trying to show the difference between Pilgrims and Puritans, and how the country evolved as a result.
I also read John Brignell’s Number Watch, and have contributed toward its upkeep. It is one of the very best sites out there, IMHO. [After WUWT, of course!]
Joel Shore (14:19:10) : Last chance-condemn this:
“The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”
As wholly inappropriate from a “scientific” organization.
Or don’t-but you will be exposed as a biased hack.
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.
I do have one question which I believe is more at hand than I thought only months ago: How many of the so called scholars who speaks for CO2 and Climate Change do you believe have studied Theories of Science more than 2-3 months?
The more I read, the more I wonder due to the lack of knowledge of difference between facts and assumptions; due to the many circle proofs presented by person or persons who should have known that circle proofs never ever prove anything of value; due to the so many faked/corrected figures without any proof what so ever that the assumptions behind the faked figures have any water at all?
It’s incredible to see that some even believe that they can use max and min for each day when not so long ago EVERY scholar who knew anything about temperature-changes in air and water knew that they had to take certain precausions such as reading the figures same time each day; such as checking so that the temperatures read were read at same level over ground; such as that the biotopic situations ALWAYS should be noted in order to compare not only between temperature-stations but the same type in respect of biotops; distance to sea/bigger lakes/rivers/woods; hights over sealevel etc etc.
What I find most disturbing is the fact that I had almost double the parameters those so called scholars at best use when I in 1993 did a survey in order to find the waterways from the Baltic Sea to Lake Roxen in Östergötland, eastern Sweden, from Stone Age up to 1000 AD. Of course both I and the so called scholars haven’t the parameter of reflexe temperatures from ground. I because I didn’t need it they because the seems to in almost every paper, work etc I have read must have forgotten this for them very important parameter…..
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…
I’ve been amazed by the Global Warming Groups. I’m no scientist, But I do have a pretty good BS detector. And a lot of there claims and findings are contradictory. They also seen to use confusion and bamboozling to silence critics. It would appear to Me there trying to force Social/Political changes On vast groups of people, regardless if you live in a developed, underdeveloped or developing country. Hopeful more Scientists will break there silence. Stand up with Fact and Empirical Data. That would truly be a inconvenient Truth
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.
The American Meteorological Society has a statement on “climate change.”
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
They are firmly in the AGW camp given the Rossby Award they bestowed on the James Hansen.