American Physical Society rejects climate policy plea from 160 physicists

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

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “American Physical Society rejects climate policy plea from 160 physicists

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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”.

    Throw the peasants a sop.

    Just another way of saying “don’t bother us with facts, the science is settled.”

  4. 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.

  5. “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.

  6. 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?

  7. “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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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:

    …a more common form of infiltration consists in simply getting a couple of seats on the Council of an organization (or on the advisory panels of government agencies). This is sufficient to veto any statements or decisions that they are opposed to. Eventually, this enables the production of statements supporting their position – if only as a quid pro quo for permitting other business to get done. Sometimes, as in the production of the 1993 report of the NAS, Policy Implications of Global Warming, the environmental activists, having largely gotten their way in the preparation of the report where they were strongly represented as ‘stake holders,’ decided, nonetheless, to issue a minority statement suggesting that the NAS report had not gone ‘far enough.’ The influence of the environmental movement has effectively made support for global warming, not only a core element of political correctness, but also a requirement for the numerous prizes and awards given to scientists. That said, when it comes to professional societies, there is often no need at all for overt infiltration since issues like global warming have become a part of both political correctness and (in the US) partisan politics, and there will usually be council members who are committed in this manner… for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. [source]

    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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. At least those 160 have their names down and will be congratulated accordingly in time for acting according to principle rather than in complicity.

  13. 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!

  14. 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?

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. And the most unscientific statement of the day is:

    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.”

    How many of the member were polled as to their conclusions?

  20. This is exactly why I’m no longer a member of APS, nor will I ever be.

    It’s all about research grants and keeping the money rolling in. They won’t jeopardize the cash cow, even if they’ve actually looked at the “science” and seen how shoddy it is.

    It’s not about physics. It’s about politics.

    Cowards.

  21. Hi Leon,

    Ofcourse our brain is shrinking.. We just dont use it anymore or less than 8%..

    Evolution took that decicion a whole lot earlier, perhaps a million years ago :)

    Belvedere

  22. It is incontrovertibly getting colder here, year on year for the last 5, and all I have to do is step outside. I am reminded daily that this is not the weather of the last 40 years.
    What will that council have to say when it all goes bad and they are about to be thrown under the bus? Not that anyone will care at that point, the damage having already been done, and too late to say “oops”.

  23. Could it be possible that the fresh water supply which has always been the main freezing process of icebergs, cold be, being diverted elsewhere?

    It appears to be the fresh water freezing, which is what icebergs are made of, from free flowing fresh water rivers This fresh water freezes upon another freeze, thus creating icebergs. Maybe the fresh water that once was the main source of these icebergs is no longer there.

  24. ” … and adds that there is “incontrovertible” evidence that global warming is occurring.”

    ‘ incontrovertible: not controvertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable: absolute and incontrovertible truth. ‘

    Exactly what is the “incontrovertible” evidence ?

    Perhaps there’s something I’ve missed ?

  25. I have a PhD in physics and I must say that I am glad that I never bothered to renew my APS membership after my students membership expired. I can tell you that the APS statement is not the consensus of every physicist.

  26. Who said this?

    “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -– and is gravely to be regarded.”

    Answer: that was President Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address.

    That is the very same speech by Ike which leftists love to quote, in which he warned about the acquisition of undue influence in the nation’s affairs by the “military-industrial complex”.

    But somehow the left magically ignores the other key warning which Eisenhower made. Which was that a “scientific-technological elite” would become corrupted, and exercise its power to ill effect, after having become addicted to federal funding.

  27. being a member, I sent cherry a return email response stating in no uncertain terms that I did not approve of the APS ‘speaking’ for me on any political topics and that they should stick to running a professional society and that those who created the 2007 position paper should be removed from office.

  28. “”” Al Pipkin (13:57:35) :

    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 does doesn’t it ?

    I thought Einstein put the kibosh on the notion that somewhere there is an absolute frame of reference.

  29. x (15:25:42) :

    This is exactly why I’m no longer a member of APS, nor will I ever be.

    It’s all about research grants and keeping the money rolling in. They won’t jeopardize the cash cow, even if they’ve actually looked at the “science” and seen how shoddy it is.

    It’s not about physics. It’s about politics.

    Bingo! This has been my view of climate “science” for a while. The “research” circle is thus:

    [Hysterical AGW Press Release] –> [Big Research $$$ from Govt.] –> [Biased Research Program (keep working until the “correct” answer emerges)] –> [Hysterical AGW Press Release]

    Just keep repeating…year after year…

  30. Of course, the possibility that the minority of physicists who signed this petition might actually be representing a “minority” physicist view doesn’t seem to be acknowledged here. Not saying I agree with that, but worth keeping in mind…

  31. Have a little inconvenient dissent that can’t be ignored? Appoint a committee. Wait a bit. Announce that after extensive review and consultation you have not changed your opinion. I don’t suppose that the committee actually bothered to issue a report and sign it with their real names?

  32. A professional scientific society should be about science, not politics. The APS has violated this basic purpose for their existence. As such they are not professional in their conduct. Any scientist is free to express their own opinion about anything from beer to quarks to football. All scientists should be encouraged to engage in science and publish. But for a “professional” society to make these sort of remarks and in doing so imply that they speak for their members calls for their dissolution. They have now ceased to be anything but hacks.

  33. Rita (15:45:16) : ?? water freezing and icebergs

    Rita, please go sleep for a couple of hours and come back refreshed. Then start at the top and read about the kerfuffle in the house of physics. When you finish reading the comment at 15:45:16 you may realize it is a little tough to understand and likely belongs someplace else. I currently have no idea where that might be but look forward to your update. Thanks.

  34. Incontrovertible evidence of Global Warming?
    It surely isn’t the rising sea levels which have stalled.
    It’s not the wild high temps reported that have the locals scratching thier heads in amazement.
    It’s not Mt. Shasta, which is a miracle on Earth they claim as the only glacier growing.
    It’s not the Yamal tree, which turned out to be a Piltdown Man disguised as a conifer.
    It’s not the Polar Ice which is recovering nicely.
    It’s not the upper atmosphere condition they proudly predicted but turned out to be backwards.
    It’s not the methane, else the settlers would have found a steaming jungle on the plains where millions of bison and other browsers roamed across N. America.

    Ok. Somebody remind me. What did they predict that came true?

  35. Of course, the possibility that the minority of physicists who signed this petition might actually be representing a “minority” physicist view doesn’t seem to be acknowledged here. Not saying I agree with that, but worth keeping in mind…

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What does it matter that a majority, or minority or whatever of physicists believe this or that. I’m not even sure why the society has to make a statement on this at all. Views based on consensus are fundamentally unscientific.

  36. Key words are “Faster than previously imagined”.
    Meaning “Imagine if the world were warming faster than it previously did, and assuming that it didn’t stop warming, which, by the way, it has stopped doing”
    Global Warming, incontrovertibly finding evidence where there is no evidence to find. Location, location, location.

  37. Their efforts should be directed at electing sane officials. Clearly, the AGW cult has done exactly the opposite with their brethren. If those new candidates need to appear to the existing power structure as complicit in the scam until after election, no harm no foul.

    Fight fire with fire. But, realize the warmists have a 30yr head start in this tactic.

  38. anna v (13:55:02) :

    “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.”

    Anna, I can assure you that the APS Council will not allow any group within its membership get the membership’s email list, or the names and addresses of its general membership, or any other contact information.

    That would allow the members to contact each other and organize to demand a retraction, or a change in APS policy. That’s why the APS Council will never provide contact information.

    I’ve been both a rank-and-file member of a similar organization, and a statewide officer. There are ways to force the issue. But they are not easy. It takes a lot of time, commitment and money. For most members, it’s easier to just not renew their membership — which, at this point, is exactly what the APS Council would prefer. Because if someone is a non-member, they have zero say in anything, and they cannot vote.

    If an APS member wants a good place to start, requesting a current copy of the organization’s bylaws is the first step [this applies to any professional organization]. Bylaws are always the first thing activists demand. Every member is entitled to their organization’s bylaws. And bylaws are always interesting. Maybe there’s an obscure rule that will help.

    BTW, the same thing happened last summer in the American Chemical Society. Dr Lindzen was exactly right. This hijacking of executive bodies isn’t an isolated event; it’s happening in the media, in schools and in professional organizations everywhere.

    There is also a coordinated effort to get control of executive bodies in every publication. And it’s world wide. Even the once great Economist chatters on incessantly now about “carbon,” and the necessity of all nations to agree to “stop climate change” at Copenhagen. And as we’ve seen, Science, Nature, Scientific American, and numerous other science oriented publications have long since been controlled by political activists.

  39. This is not really any different than when brave skeptics stood up to the consensus on eugenics in the early 20th century.
    Svante Arrhenius, Margaret Sanger, and other eugenics promoters, led many politicians and leading intellectuals into the vilest or rationalizations to commit terrible racism, forced sterilization, etc., in the name of consensus, well accepted science.

  40. Dave says:

    “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.

    Yes, because if Happer claimed this with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, then it still must be true?

    R Pearse says:

    Just wondering, has it been debated and put to a vote of the society?

    The APS, like most organizations, operates by representative democracy. I strongly encourage those APS members who seem so sure that a direct vote would turn out otherwise to put this to the test by putting together a slate of people who openly support the petitioners’ proposed change in the APS statement to run for the Councillor positions. It would be interesting to see how many votes they get.

    And, by the way, while it wasn’t put to a direct vote, APS members receive the monthly “APSNews”, also available in a slightly modified version online ( http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200910/index.cfm ), the October issue of which had a front-page article entitled “Climate Statement Gets Renewed Scrutiny” about the petition and the fact that the APS statement was going to be reviewed and ending with the paragraph:

    Members who wish to provide their input on these issues prior to the Council meeting on November 8 can do so by contacting an appropriate member of Council. Each APS division and forum has its own Councillor, and sections are represented on a rotating basis. There are also eight General Councillors. A list of Council members can be found at http://www.aps.org/about/governance/executive/councillors.cfm The officers of the Society, who are ex officio members of Council, are listed separately at http://www.aps.org/about/governance/executive/officers.cfm .

    x says:

    This is exactly why I’m no longer a member of APS, nor will I ever be.

    It’s all about research grants and keeping the money rolling in. They won’t jeopardize the cash cow, even if they’ve actually looked at the “science” and seen how shoddy it is.

    It’s not about physics. It’s about politics.

    Cowards.

    Yes, because it couldn’t possibly be that they have looked at the science and come to a very different conclusion than you, the same conclusion that virtually every major scientific organization on the planet has come to?

    And, by the way, I would say that the fraction of APS members who get funding on anything having to do with climate change…or that they would even claim in a grant proposal has some tangential relationship to climate change…is very small.

  41. I am seriously sick to my stomach at this point.

    It’s becoming more and more apparent to me, and this (APS decision) is yet another confirmation to the inevitability of a ‘scientific consensus to a voluntary global economic crash’.

    If there’s ever a time to call the IPCC to task, it’s now. And only ‘outside’ scientists can achieve that.

    I don’t see that happening as fast as it needs to, which scares the hell out of me.

    Unfortunately, we lay persons will be the victims in this political game. While we’re running around hugging trees and saving whales, politicians and their ilk are bending us over the proverbial desk with our pants around our ankles.

  42. Let’s see, 47,000 members – 6 committee members = 1 to 7833.3333… That clearly makes a “consensus.”

  43. Smokey says:

    BTW, the same thing happened last summer in the American Chemical Society. Dr Lindzen was exactly right. This hijacking of executive bodies isn’t an isolated event; it’s happening in the media, in schools and in professional organizations everywhere.

    There is also a coordinated effort to get control of executive bodies in every publication. And it’s world wide. Even the once great Economist chatters on incessantly now about “carbon,” and the necessity of all nations to agree to “stop climate change” at Copenhagen. And as we’ve seen, Science, Nature, Scientific American, and numerous other science oriented publications have long since been controlled by political activists.

    Oh…I get it. So, the more and more organizations, science-oriented publications, and even oil companies come to conclusions you disagree with, the more and more evidence this is of massive collusion on a global scale! That makes perfect sense! I am beginning to understand how evidence works for “skeptics”!

    Actually, one of the amusing things about the petitioners is the fact that they wanted the APS to adopt a statement on climate change that would have made ExxonMobil look like an organization of tree-hugging environmental extremists by comparison. (And, if you think I am exaggerating, compare them: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx and http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html )

  44. hunter- 17:38:54- Arrhenius was a eugenics fan? What an ignominious track record!

    That is a very interesting tidbit.

  45. I just knew Joel Shore would jump in as an apologist for the APS Council’s devious shenanigans. He just doesn’t get it. Apparently Shore never read Prof Lindzen’s exposé showing how a small coterie of political activists can hijack an organization like the APS. Anyone who thinks this is “representative democracy” probably thinks the Potemkin village was representative of all Russian villages, too. Really, anyone who believes that the APS position represents the thinking of 47,000 members is a fool. We don’t know their position, because it has been drowned out by a very tiny clique. Six self-designated activists presuming to speak the minds of 47,000 physicists. As if.

    Miss Cherry hand-picked her six cronies to make up a rubber stamp committee, exactly as Lindzen describes, and… voila! The 160 physicist/members’ request is summarily rejected; time to MoveOn.

    But I will agree that “…the fraction of APS members who get funding on anything having to do with climate change… is very small.” No doubt about that. Because the grant money is funneled to where it gets results: Cherry and her buds. The APS rank-and-file members get to pay dues; that’s their job. That’s their only job. So when they get uppity and question the APS globaloney propaganda, they get put in their place via an anonymous ad-hoc committee. Who do those physicists think they are, anyway? Nobel laureates or something?

  46. “This hijacking of executive bodies isn’t an isolated event; it’s happening in the media, in schools and in professional organizations everywhere.”

    Thus non-individual, committee-based opinion must be discounted as unrepresentative and invalid. “Authority” has no shoes!!

  47. The fact that they even considered creating a panel, and though rejected the letter, should be a victory for those skeptical of AGW.

    Since they hadn’t dismissed the letter outright, which would have been slap in the face of scientific rigor, a consensus surely has not been reached.

    The Views are of global warming are clearly changing.

    Now is the time to continue to aply pressure .

  48. A tiny observation. Did the “Executive Committee” poll its members to come to its conclusion? And if it did poll its members to come to its conclusion – can we see the raw data?

  49. Miss Cherry hand-picked her six cronies to make up a rubber stamp committee, exactly as Lindzen describes, and… voila! The 160 physicist/members’ request is summarily rejected; time to MoveOn.

    The membership of the ad hoc committee is not anonymous to APS members…And, in fact, one of the people who was included on that committee is someone who signed a letter sent by the George C Marshall Institute to President Bush in 2002 applauding his approach to climate change policy ( http://www.governmentdocs.org/docs/upl204/foi51/doc930/pdfs/pdf000378.pdf ). To my knowledge, none of the other committee members had engaged in such activism in the other direction. So, I would say rather that Cherry bent over backwards to represent the committee with a prominent “skeptical” voice and did not provide any counterbalance to him, at least in terms of overt political activism on the issue.

    And, by the way, it is not “Miss Cherry”, it is Dr. Cherry Murray. Here is a little bit of info on her: https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2006/NR-06-09-03.html

  50. Oh…And, the committee member that I spoke of was also a signer of the Oregon petition.

    By the way, Smokey’s continued use of Dr. Murray’s first name caused me to slip into using it in my previous post…Just a mistake and should not be interpreted to imply that I know her well enough to refer to her on a first-name basis. (In fact, I’ve never met her.)

  51. Belvedere (15:34:47) :

    Hi Leon,

    Ofcourse our brain is shrinking.. We just dont use it anymore or less than 8%..

    Not sure if you were joking, but that 8% or 10% is a complete myth…

  52. Kindly excuse reading posts in reverse this evening.

    Yes, because it couldn’t possibly be that they have looked at the science and come to a very different conclusion than you, the same conclusion in that virtually every major scientific organization on the planet has come to?

    Let us not overlook Joel’s sometimes clever use of nomenclature. “Virtually” every major scientific organization is tantamount to saying, “At least the ones I have created on my Playstation here at Shore Really Real Simulations LLC. ” You cannot live in a virtual world forever. Sooner or later you have unplug and face the music.

  53. It’s a global phenomena. Most professional institutions and associations express belief in global warming. It’s really not surprising.

    Meanwhile: “Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916648.ece

    In the same article, the Met Office seems to think: “Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said that growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.”

  54. A physicist was asked to specify a model of the energy balance of a cow. He sat down at a desk and put pen to paper.

    1. First, start with a spherical cow…

  55. Joel Shore (18:55:37) :

    Joel,

    If there is nothing going on at the APS that is motivated by anything other than scientific reasons, and their statement is truly scientifically sound, then this news of the rejection 160 physicists should be announced from every news outlet in the media. The APS should broadcast it loud and clear to the world what it has done.

    If that would happen then the chips would fall where they may—and let’s see the public reaction to it.

    What do you say Joel? Are you willing to lobby the APS for just such a thing to take place? Since you are confident in your science, and the science of the APS statement, then are you willing to let the whole world know, in full light of day, what took place with this APS rejection?

  56. American Physical Society hypes Climate change.

    Warming! Get your Global Warming here!
    (Kleppner) Want some Global Warming mate?
    (Man) What?
    (Kleppner) You know, catastrophic floods, melting glaciers, droughts, that sort of stuff.
    (Man) Nah, its all bollocks,
    (Kleppner) No its not.
    (Man) Yes it is, where’s the hot spot?
    (Kleppner) What?
    (Man) The tropospheric hot spot, there’s supposed to be a hot spot if the warming is man made.
    (Kleppner) No theres not.
    (Man) Yes there is, scientists say the signature of man made warming is a hot spot in the troposphere and no one can find it.
    (Kleppner) Yes they can.
    (Man) What?
    (Kleppner) They found it.
    (Man) Where?
    (Kleppner) In the troposphere.
    (Man) Where’s the proof.
    (Kleppner) What?
    (Man) Where’s the proof they found it.
    (Kleppner) They lost it.
    (Man) What?
    (Kleppner) They gave it to that Phil Jones guy and he lost it.
    (Man) What about sea levels then?
    (Kleppner) What about them.
    (Man) They’re supposed to be rising faster aren’t they?
    (Kleppner) They are.
    (Man) No theyre not, all the evidence points to them staying the same.
    (Kleppner) Look, over there.
    (Man) What?
    (Kleppner) A wave just broke over that wall.
    (Man) No it didnt.
    (Kleppner) Yes it did, and again, look the seas are rising.
    (Man) That’s a bush.
    (Kleppner) Look, its warming right, don’t ask me how I know, it just is.
    (Man) Your a tw*t, now f*ck off and leave me alone.
    (Kleppner) Warming! Get your Global Warming here!

  57. Even the Pope eventually admitted that Gallileo was right. Is APS holier than the Pope or is it just the irrevocable religious convictions of a cabal of jihadists?

  58. “As far as I can quickly conclude the APS AGW skeptical consensus is the clear 5:1 voting majority of 165 AGW objectivists to 33 AGW “Believers” and 46,802 not sure.

    Of the 47,000 current APS members (to date that haven’t resigned) 46,802 have no opinion about AGW, 165 (160 petition signers and 5 council members) hold that AGW should be addressed scientifically skeptically/objectively and 33 (27 leaked number of councilors and 6 review committee members supporting AGW uber significance) hold that AGW should be “Believed”. While the opinionless and most of the 33 “Believers” are anonymous, only the 160 signed petitioners have been publicly acknowledged.

    How about a proper scientific public debate and then a proper survey of the membership? I suppose the overturning of the world’s economy promoting possibly millions of deaths in undeveloped countries based upon faulty modeler’s projections is not significant enough.

    Is one Physicsworld issue of even numbers of pro/con positions too much to allow? A year’s worth would be more appropriate.

    Where is the “robustness” in the APS pro “Believer” position?”

  59. It’s funny, isn’t it, that the APS doesn’t state H2O in its list of greenhouse gases?

    “Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases.”

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

    H2O makes up approximately 95% of all greenhouse gases.

    How can a ‘scientific’ statement about greenhouse gases not foremost mention H2O but, apparently, minimize it by including it in ‘other gases’?

    But I see it lists, first, and foremost, ‘carbon dioxide’.

    And some want us to think no politics are involved in the statement—please, save your breath!

  60. Well maybe a few questions remain…

    Anthony and so many others across the world are actually trying to find the truth – I commend you.

    Personally I find the arguments put forth to the Media-Political-Legal Elites to be completely confused (except when it comes to grabbing other peoples money).

    It would seem that most of us agree the EARTH has been both much colder and warmer than today… so exactly what is the allowable tolerance?

    Do we have a significant PLAN to handle the COOLING (Ice Age?)… or are the Central Planners using this scenario for population control?

    It is very unfortunate that so many US scientists are terrified of the Ruler Scientists – I can see a lot of innovation and growth in our future!

    Great article and Website!

  61. Surely it is obvious why scientific societies have migrated to the beltway and why they make such decisions behind closed doors. It is not for the benefit of advancing science nor even for the benefit of their membership.

    I am close to ending my membership of ACS of almost 30 years. It saddens me that politics have taken over science and truth is denied if it doesn’t promote the prevailing agenda.

    On the other hand, it’s refreshing that WUWT allows free discourse. Only through such debate will the truth be known.

  62. 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.”

    I wasn’t aware that research was done with all 47,000 members that has shown, ‘Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion’.

    Or was he assuming? And if he was then is using assumption a scientific approach?

    He does use the word ‘most’. So he must have access to the opinions of more than half of the 47,000, i.e., more than 23,500 (23,501 being the low end of the ‘most’ scale) in order to be able to say this.

    Does he know the opinions of that many?

  63. Dr Shore is back, but not to correct some incorrect scientific (which I consider a valuable contribution), but to announce “the same conclusion in that virtually every major scientific organization on the planet”. We posters here are just a bunch of ignorant bumpkins who have no business questioning science.

    What is that scientific conclusion that such profound policy must be undertaken? That Greenland is turning into slush that will flow significantly into the ocean within 100 years? Even an an engineer can figure out that there is not enough heat to melt Greenland, so it instead must soften and flow. But the faster edge flows up to 2005 have reversed back to 1980’s rates. So that theory is at least temporarily wrong and there are no other catastrophes to take its place.

  64. Joel worries: “By the way, Smokey’s continued use of Dr. Murray’s first name caused me to slip into using it in my previous post…”

    Sorry he’s so easily swayed [by ‘continued’ he means “twice.”].

    Indiana Bones (18:47:27) :

    “A tiny observation. Did the “Executive Committee” poll its members to come to its conclusion? And if it did poll its members to come to its conclusion – can we see the raw data?”

    Bones, did you mean the six committee members? If it’s the ad-hoc committee, I think the relevant question is: can we see the meeting minutes? Individual polling is not legitimate under Robert’s Rules of Order. It’s way too easy to call the weakest member first, and get his/her buy-in, then call the next weakest member and say, “So far it’s unanimous. Are you on board?” And so on. Further, in committee meetings discussion takes place. New ideas and proposals are batted around; it’s a process. Ideas come up in committees that might never occur to individuals.

    Come to think of it, maybe the committee was individually polled. Let’s see those meeting minutes… if they exist. Who was the meeting’s recording secretary?

    As for the rest of Joel Shore’s apologia for the APS morphing into a political organization [and I note that Missy Miz Cherry is also the P.R. go-to person, the Congressional liaison, and — wouldn’t you know it — the human rights investigator], I prefer to listen to the first-hand account of someone who knows exactly what’s going on in these professional organizations: Prof Richard Lindzen.

    As president of my organization, it was practically a joking matter when we wanted a predetermined outcome for a question that no individual wanted to personally address: I simply appointed an ad-hoc committee. And I knew exactly how they would decide. By selecting the right individuals, no marching orders were necessary. And it always looked better if one or two minority votes were cast. That’s how executive board democracy works.

    With a committee, no one is personally responsible; the decision is the committee’s, not any individual’s. That’s exactly what the APS did here [they learned a lesson from the American Chemical Society: one individual, in that case the Editor, had best not make statements contrary to the views of the membership].

    So the APS passed the buck to a rubber stamp committee. And of course they did not ask the dues paying membership for their input. That would have been stupid. They would only ask the membership questions about AGW if they were sure of the answer.

    I know how these organizations work, and how simple it is to hijack a peripheral issue like AGW. And I know the APS will never sincerely ask the membership its views in a fair and neutral manner: by inviting a spokesman for the 160 physicists to meet and mutually formulate questions to be sent out to the membership, in order to determine the members’ views on AGW. The APS Council does not want the membership’s true views on AGW made public.

    These organizations are gaming the system. I know how easy it is for one or two executive board members or committee members to do what the APS is doing, because I’ve been there and done that.

    It would be easy to prove me — and Prof Lindzen — wrong. Simply ask the membership some AGW questions that are fairly negotiated between both sides.

    But that will not happen, because the APS Council does not want the world to know the true views of its 47,000 members. They have issued their propaganda, and they’re sticking with it.

  65. Gene Nemetz says:

    If there is nothing going on at the APS that is motivated by anything other than scientific reasons, and their statement is truly scientifically sound, then this news of the rejection 160 physicists should be announced from every news outlet in the media. The APS should broadcast it loud and clear to the world what it has done.

    What are you suggesting…That they should issue a press release to the media like this http://aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.cfm ?

    It’s funny, isn’t it, that the APS doesn’t state H2O in its list of greenhouse gases?

    The term “greenhouse gases” is used in different ways. One can talk about it purely in terms of the radiative properties of the gas in the atmosphere, which is what you are thinking of. However, in the context of the concern over our influence of the climate system, what is important is how our emissions of greenhouse gases can change their concentrations in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic water vapor emissions are essentially irrelevant on a global scale and the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is essentially slave to the temperature. Perhaps the APS could have been more precise by using the term “long-lived greenhouse gases” but I don’t think their terminology is really open to much misunderstanding.

    So, to summarize, is water vapor a greenhouse gas? In the radiative sense, yes. Are emissions of water vapor a concern for the affects on the climate system? No, at least not at anything close to their current emissions.

    It’s not a matter of politics; it is a matter of what regime a substance falls into based not just on its radiative properties but also on its behavior based on its current concentration and rates of injection into and removal from the atmosphere. Water vapor is a very different beast because of the rapidity of its natural cycling through the atmosphere relative to practical anthropogenic injection rates.

  66. Joel Shore (18:03:56) :

    “… organizations, science-oriented publications, and even oil companies come to conclusions…”

    I don’t know about the organizations and publications, but through direct involvement, colleagues, contacts and scuttlebutt in the oil & gas industry I can tell you that these “conclusions” are business decisions, not science driven positions. Oil & gas has been vilified by greenfolk for decades, despite providing a much-in-demand commodity, and now the only way to stave off the political wolves and have a seat at the regulatory table is by voluntarily agreeing to some kind of thesis. The alternative is to risk the imposition of more draconian restrictions than might otherwise be negotiated.

  67. Joel seems to be very defensive, but not very convincing –

    Joel Shore (17:55:07) :
    “The APS, like most organizations, operates by representative democracy. I strongly encourage those APS members who seem so sure that a direct vote would turn out otherwise to put this to the test by putting together a slate of people who openly support the petitioners’ proposed change in the APS statement to run for the Councillor positions. It would be interesting to see how many votes they get.”

    paullm: as wuwt pointed out months ago most of the APS membership is of low cost membership students who won’t participate.

    “Yes, because it couldn’t possibly be that they have looked at the science and come to a very different conclusion than you, the same conclusion that virtually every major scientific organization on the planet has come to?”

    And, by the way, I would say that the fraction of APS members who get funding on anything having to do with climate change…or that they would even claim in a grant proposal has some tangential relationship to climate change…is very small.”

    paullm: OK, Joel – “very small” is not good enough. How small? Months ago WUWT has also presented how exorbitant amounts of Gov. money and support has been devoted to AGW Alarmists for many years while “Skeptics” have received nothing. Tell me, please, where would org. loyalties lie?

  68. Smokey says:

    As president of my organization, it was practically a joking matter when we wanted a predetermined outcome for a question that no individual wanted to personally address: I simply appointed an ad-hoc committee. And I knew exactly how they would decide. By selecting the right individuals, no marching orders were necessary. And it always looked better if one or two minority votes were cast. That’s how executive board democracy works.

    One of the most insightful statements that I have seen about so-called “AGW skeptics” is that they see the mainstream scientists as being so political because they simply cannot imagine handling science in an objective or dispassionate way. I.e., they think that they are looking out at others but what they are merely seeing themselves in the mirror.

    I think your description here provides further evidence of this. Just because you politicize the world doesn’t mean that everyone else does. It is almost amusing to see you and Ron de Haan and others go off on your political tirades regularly here and then talk about those horribly politicized scientists at the APS, NAS, AAAS, IPCC, ACS, AMS, AGU, etc., etc. And, the sad part is that I think that you actually believe it is them and not you who are so thoroughly politicized.

    And of course they did not ask the dues paying membership for their input. That would have been stupid. They would only ask the membership questions about AGW if they were sure of the answer.

    Really? Which part of “Members who wish to provide their input on these issues prior to the Council meeting on November 8 can do so by contacting an appropriate member of Council. Each APS division and forum has its own Councillor, and sections are represented on a rotating basis. There are also eight General Councillors. A list of Council members can be found at http://www.aps.org/about/governance/executive/councillors.cfm The officers of the Society, who are ex officio members of Council, are listed separately at http://www.aps.org/about/governance/executive/officers.cfm .” do you not understand?

  69. Humanity is facing a societal evolutionary process.
    The followers of science will go the way of the neanderthal.
    A new world order is in the making. Adapt.

  70. oakgeo says:

    Oil & gas has been vilified by greenfolk for decades, despite providing a much-in-demand commodity, and now the only way to stave off the political wolves and have a seat at the regulatory table is by voluntarily agreeing to some kind of thesis. The alternative is to risk the imposition of more draconian restrictions than might otherwise be negotiated.

    I don’t strongly disagree with this in all respects but would rephrase it as:

    Oil & gas companies have long fought against the scientific evidence of AGW. However, now the scientific evidence is so strong that it is no longer politically-tenable for them to continue to fight it. And, the only way to stave off the political tide and have a seat at the regulatory table is by voluntarily agreeing to some kind of thesis. The alternative is to risk the imposition of more draconian restrictions than might otherwise be negotiated.

    paullm says:

    Months ago WUWT has also presented how exorbitant amounts of Gov. money and support has been devoted to AGW Alarmists for many years while “Skeptics” have received nothing.

    Hmmm…You might want to check out the numbers on what Spencer and Lindzen have received in government funding. Spencer (and Christy too?) even was an employee of NASA for heaven’ sake! And, scientists are funded to study science. They are not classified into categories first. And, earth-observing satellite systems are even less likely to be classified as “alarmists” or “skeptics”. (Sort of reminds me of the joke on the Daily Show a few years ago that “the facts have an anti-Bush bias”.)

  71. Joel Shore,

    I know politics when I see it, even if you don’t. And your psychological projection doesn’t work here. The world is being heavily politicized, and that extends to organizations like the APS. Unless your claim is that Prof Lindzen and I are both making up stories.

    I am reporting on the shenanigans that the APS is engaging in. All it takes is one activist to change an organization’s direction, as Prof Lindzen points out.

    I’ve suggested a reasonable method of resolving this question, which would provide the membership’s true views on AGW. But that is the very reason that neither the APS nor you would ever agree to ask the APS membership a series of questions that are fairly negotiated between both sides. You don’t want the truth to be known.

    It’s very easy to determine the membership’s views — IF you and the APS council were interested in finding out the truth. But if you’re not, then just keep on doing what you’re doing. You’re fooling no one else here.

  72. From APS:

    “The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society’s current statement. The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition.

    The committee also recommended that the current APS statement be allowed to stand, but it requested that the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) examine the statement for possible improvements in clarity and tone.”

    If “replace” in the first sentence means insert the statement in the petition in place of the current one it is hardly surprising that this was rejected, even by people who think it had some merit. If there is to be a changed they will need to that in a way that avoids admitting they were wrong. So if people did want to back off, they would want to do it by degrees. For example, a first step could consider “improvements in clarity and tone.”

    I have no idea that this does suggest a change of view, but if there has been one this is just the kind of statement that is a necessary part of the process.

  73. Overwelmingly rejects it? We were not consulted. Again. On policy positions either consult us or shut the H up!

    I have news for Daniel Kleppner and his panel, the only reason we, your membership, hasn’t thrown the bunch of you out already over this issue is because we need to have research grants, so we don’t want to be that public.

    The APS position is an embarassment to competent physics professionals everywhere.

  74. Joel Shore

    As to APS operations, it is apparent that you are completely without a clue.

    Like most such organizations it is largely a handful of paid staff and a few volunteers who run everything. Most of the time that’s just great and many of us take a turn on the volunteer end. But, your idea that it is some real democracy or that their jobs are to represent us on issues is gravely mistaken. The largest qualification is being willing to do a lot of extremely tedious work.

  75. Joel Shore (20:09:10) :

    I just watched some news channel tickers to see if the APS story is being reported. Nope, it’s not there. But I did see that Willem Dafoe played golf with a savant. So you need to get to work!

    One thing I do see is longer, colder winters. So does everyone else.

  76. Joel Shore you are a very bad case of AGW extremism. You will need extensive counseling and debriefing to rid yourself of the delusion that the microscopic amounts of CO2 we are adding to our atmosphere will cause and inexorable and harmful rise in global temperatures.

    There are two concepts you will have to grapple with one that climate change is natural and second that the warmer temperatures we are experiencing now are beneficial and in no way harmful.

    The third concept maybe too radical for you to swallow at the moment – but you can file it away for future contemplation : CO2 is NOT a pollutant and has great beneficial properties at the levels we have today or in the foreseeable future.

  77. Joel Shore: “One of the most insightful statements that I have seen about so-called “AGW skeptics”…

    STOP. “So-called AGW skeptics”, Joel??

    Why do you say “so-called?”…as if, scientifically you can wave your magic censor wand and declare them not to exist??

    Very telling, Joel. Very telling.

    On that note, I suppose I could take the liberty you a “so-called AGW believer.”

    Lose the sophistry in your arguments, and stick to the science please.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  78. Smokey originally wrote: Miss Cherry hand-picked her six cronies to make up a rubber stamp committee, exactly as Lindzen describes, and… voila! The 160 physicist/members’ request is summarily rejected; time to MoveOn.

    Joel Shore (18:55:37) writes : The membership of the ad hoc committee is not anonymous to APS members…And, in fact, one of the people who was …

    Well Joel, you didn’t really address the ‘hand-picked six cronies’ part (MIGHT THIS THEN BE TRUE?), instead you ever-so-slyly move off in a slightly different direction, on a tangential point, mentioning that the ad hoc commitee members _were_ known to APS members (known how? Known as cronies of Cherry as well?).

    And so subtly that NO ONE seems to have noticed it; you were able to introduce a tangential factoid, while not adressing the cronyism issue.

    Good job, dissembler.
    .
    .

  79. Joel Shore: ” ….is that they [Skeptics] see the mainstream scientists as being so political because they simply cannot imagine handling science in an objective or dispassionate way.”

    Wow. Isn’t THAT the ole’ “scientific” big-ass POT calling the kettle black.

    Thank you for that projective self-confession of the AGW dogma.

    QUESTION: IF “objective and dispassionate science” is your goal hey we all have that in common)…but if “objective and dispassionate” is your goal, then why do you spend your posts deriding anyone who dares to question the current “Establishment” in the world of science today?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  80. I see Joel is playing the big bad oil, forced to do the right thing card.

    I have news for you Joel.

    Big bad oil couldn’t give a rats a$$ which way the science goes, they always profit from it.

    They do need to know which way the science goes though, so they can better prepare.

    Yes it’s commercially expedient for them to go along with things & I’m surprised ExxonMobil took so long to jump on board. Maybe what they know of the science made them think they could ride it out until the scam fell apart, maybe they have jumped on board so that when the scam does fall apart, they can say, we held out as long as we could for the sake of our customers.

    It’s not for me to second guess their reasoning but commercially, it would IMHO have made sense for them to have jumped aboard the gravy train earlier.

    DaveE.

  81. SECOND QUESTION (to Joel Shore):

    If you and those 160 of your colleagues (many of them plenty older and wiser than you….sorry, bud….with age comes wisdom)….but if you and those 160 were in the same room…what would you say to them?

    Would you call them a bunch of lunatics for dissenting?

    Or would you, as a scientist, and a physicist (as you are ethically obligated to do) assimilate their remarkable and robust objections as real, observed data, and try and figure out what the hell is going on?

    And if what THEY had arrived on was of note, would you (be honest here) would YOU be able to overcome the natural human tendency toward cognitive dissonance, and at least, SEE THEIR POINT??

    You don’t have to agree with them…

    But to dismiss them….does more violence to the Scientific Method…than any fraud theory or counter-theory could ever do.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  82. Chris S (19:21:07) :

    Hilarious. You need to be a screenwriter in your second job. VERY funny (Even if it is inside humor).

    Thanks for that. Always enjoy your posts.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  83. Joel Shore (20:09:10) :

    “Oil & gas companies have long fought against the scientific evidence of AGW. However, now the scientific evidence is so strong that it is no longer politically-tenable for them to continue to fight it.”

    I don’t agree with your characterization. Oil & gas companies have fought against the scientific evidence? I don’t even know what you mean by “fought”. AGW was hardly on their radar screens until recently. Unless you mean research funding that might falsify AGW. They spent far more on researching better extraction techniques. As an academic, you know full well that industry funding of reasearch is common. The better mousetrap, you know.

    And it is not the scientific evidence that makes their position politically untenable, it is politics that makes it politically untenable. You even seem to agree with my “draconian” comment… well, that is politics.

  84. _Jim…..which post? I see my italics frame exactly the quotes that mean them to frame?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  85. The poll of the museum is interesting, since I would suppose it would be science educated people taking part.

    # 4504 counted in so far
    # 7253 counted out

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

    The ratio is diminishing, but now is the time for school kids to walk through the exhibit and one knows what they would vote. They have to rush up school visits but they cannot eliminate the counted out entries anyway.

    I expect an anonymous poll of the APS would also have a similar outcome, with no school children.

  86. Dr A Burns (15:46:41) :

    ” … and adds that there is “incontrovertible” evidence that global warming is occurring.”
    ‘ incontrovertible: not controvertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable: absolute and incontrovertible truth. ‘
    Exactly what is the “incontrovertible” evidence ?

    Within Platonic Mathematics we can have incontrovertible truth – but incontrovertible truth within Physics? No! Proof: When was the last time you saw error bars used in a mathematical proof? (not to be confused with intervals or the use of interval arithmetic)

    On another topic: We are seeing the results of a newer generation of scientists who were raised with computers rather than slide rules. A lifetime of slide rule skills in juggling orders of magnitude imparted a sixth sense for judging what might be possible and what might not be possible. When I first heard about global warming back in the mid 1990s, I accepted those trends that I examined as natural phenomena – but when I heard some $cientists trying to qualify global warming with the term “anthroprogenic,” my years of scientific modeling with equations, sliderules, and computer programming immediately rendered a skeptical reaction. Yes, it was an intuitive, almost faith-based reaction – faith in the immense order of magnitudes that natural phenomena exerts over us puny – but ever so arrogant humans.

  87. COME TO POPA:

    Alright. If people here really would like to see a change in the APS statement – write an email addressed to the POPA Steering Committee members. These are the people charged with “reviewing” their current hand wringing statement on global warming.

    The Steering Committee consists of:
    Chairperson, the Chairperson-Elect, the Vice-Chairperson, the Vice-President, the Chair of the Physics Policy Committee, and at least two additional members selected from among and by the members of POPA (unidentified at this time.)

    Their email addresses are here:
    http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa/index.cfm

    Will Laffer and 160 petitioner scientists embarrass the APS by demanding they admit they were wrong and replace their over-heated statement on AGW. That invokes too much angst for erudite Committee members. But perhaps an amended statement that moves the APS toward a face-saving exit will be better received.

    Write em and tell them you expect more from so lofty an organization. Cite the most recent science and language that tempers the catastrophizing of the present statement. At the very least it will be an exercise in grass roots democracy.

  88. Science should not be result of compromise or negotiations, it should be based on facts. It is beneficial to have a clear dividing line between AGW and doubters. AGWs have jumped on the bandwagon, without definitive scientific proof , while doubters have not managed to come up with a convincing knockout theory. Any wishy-washy consensus between two could be only an obstacle to true progress, currently lacking.
    Science calls for a battle royal not a ceasefire.

  89. Joel, you can argue till you are blue in the face but this whole debate about the APS should be reduced to one irrefutable principle:

    A professional society has no place in expressing an opinion on behalf of its members.

    I you disagree (although I proclaim it as an “irrefutable principle”) let me hear your arguments.

  90. I think the petitioners were barking up the wrong tree. They would have been on stronger ground if they had argued that the APS hierarchy had no business promulgating a statement on anthropogenic global warming at all, since they clearly haven’t canvassed the views of their membership.

  91. Joel Shore (20:09:10) :
    So, to summarize, is water vapor a greenhouse gas? In the radiative sense, yes. Are emissions of water vapor a concern for the affects on the climate system? No, at least not at anything close to their current emissions.

    Ahhhh — so water vapor is a more “potent” greenhouse gas than Cee-Owe-Two and the miniscule amount that we emit in proportion to the natural occurrence is of *no* consequence, but the miniscule amount of the “less-potent” Cee-Owe-Two we emit in proportion to the natural occurrence is of *dire* consequence.

    Got it.

  92. Joel Shore: Hmmm…You might want to check out the numbers on what Spencer and Lindzen have received in government funding. Spencer (and Christy too?) even was an employee of NASA for heaven’ sake!

    Spencer left NASA precisely because he could no longer work under their AGW-supportive dissidents-quashing POV. And “for heaven’ sake”, what kind of comparison is this, a tiny handful of skeptical scientists who still manage to get Government funding as opposed to a huge majority of warmists? Perhaps they could not get away with dismissing Lindzen. But they did get away with dismissing Dr Deming. And I suspect a lot more.

    Gene Nemetz (21:02:18) : One thing I do see is longer, colder winters. So does everyone else.

    _Jim (21:27:33) : Smokey originally wrote: Miss Cherry hand-picked her six cronies to make up a rubber stamp committee, exactly as Lindzen describes… Joel Shore (18:55:37) writes : The membership of the ad hoc committee is not anonymous to APS members… Well Joel, you didn’t really address the ‘hand-picked six cronies’ part, instead you ever-so-slyly move off in a slightly different direction…

    savethesharks (21:35:36) : Joel Shore: ””….is that they [Skeptics] see the mainstream scientists as being so political because they simply cannot imagine handling science in an objective or dispassionate way.”” Wow. Isn’t THAT the ole’ “scientific” big-ass POT calling the kettle black…

    DaveE (21:39:11) : I see Joel is playing the big bad oil, forced to do the right thing card. I have news for you Joel. Big bad oil couldn’t give a rats a$$ which way the science goes, they always profit from it…

    Richard (21:12:43) : (paraphrasing) Joel Shore is a very bad case of AGW extremism… There are [three] concepts to grapple with (1) climate change is natural (2) warmer temperatures are on balance beneficial (3) CO2 is NOT a pollutant (but basic food for plants.)

    Knowing how extensively AGW has been holed below the water-line, and how well that is exposed here to all who look with an open mind, I’m intrigued as to why Joel Shore keeps on here. Such a closed mind in a trained scientist horrifies me. But it also keeps reminding me that there are many others like Joel. However, I now doubt Joel’s belief that the APS membership would freely vote to support AGW any longer, seeing that…

    anna v (22:22:38) : The poll of the [science] museum is interesting, since I would suppose it would be science educated people taking part.
    # 4504 counted in so far
    # 7253 counted out

    But I notice… We’ve seen several such comparison of numbers from this poll, and the total is NOT GROWING AFAIK. Have the organizers got a well-trained dog to eat the homework?

  93. Joel Shore
    The original owners and majority shareholders of Exxon-Mobil have a long and easily researched history of financing “AGW” science via their foundations. That way believers like yourself can make ridiculously ill-informed statements about the “badies” having “long fought against the science” (that they funded). Oh well,
    I’m sure it matters little to your convictions, the truth that is.

  94. As I said “A professional society has no place in expressing an opinion on behalf of its members.” This also applies for scientific Journals or semi- scientific magazines like New Scientist or Scientific American or “independent” media like BBC, on behalf/over the head of their shareholders, editors or subscribers. Because whenever an organization takes sides in a scientific dispute or controversy unbiased reporting is unlikely to be upheld.

  95. Errata: and apologies to Dr. Will Happer – the award winning Professor of Physics at Princeton and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993. Dr. Happer has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

  96. I have noticed a barrage of tv ads from Exxon Mobil over the last several weeks. In one of these ads they show a scientist talking about energy extraction from algae. In another there is a scientist explaining how they can drill to great depths to find gas. This tells me they are now maneuvering themselves to get a slice of whatever subsidies become available. And why not? They are just chasing the money.

    However, one thing I have never seeen, is them, or any other oil company placing tv ads to try and suggest that global warming isn’t man made. The suggestion that oil companies previously campaigned against AGW, seems without evidence.

  97. Ladies and gentlemen, science has left the building!

    In its place, politics is to play the starring role!

  98. Vincent,

    “The suggestion that oil companies previously campaigned against AGW, seems without evidence.”

    You didn’t seem to look very hard. XOM rarely used its name directly for those purposes, but they fund all sorts of things. Just start with the API and CEI.

  99. Lucy Skywalker: “Have the organizers got a well-trained dog to eat the homework?”

    I suspect it is the SAME randy, gregarious, slobbering English Labrador Retriever roaming around over there who probably devoured the Briffa dataset.

    My Lab one time ate some of my curtains, one time part of the Christmas tree and some of the gifts under it. They’ll eat anything. ;-)

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  100. Lucy Skywalker: “Knowing how extensively AGW has been holed below the water-line, and how well that is exposed here to all who look with an open mind, I’m intrigued as to why Joel Shore keeps on here. Such a closed mind in a trained scientist horrifies me. But it also keeps reminding me that there are many others like Joel.”

    It seems to be a psychological phenomenon like “mass delusion” or “collective cognitive dissonance.”

    Very interesting phenomena that occur in our species from time to time (and that gets even the smartest of us).

    As we are on the cusp of learning more how organisms swarm and school and act as “super-organisms”, the current quasi-religious AGW movement will certainly be a case-study.

    Group-think (a.k.a. “consensus”) has contributed to some tragic, tragic chapters in human history no doubt. One only has to think back about 65 years on the Continent.

    And Group-Think destroys…..DESTROYS the Scientific Method.

    Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney, who co-authored the book “Unscientific America” and with whose premises I largely agree, create a BIG divergence, however, when they repeatedly, throughout the book, label the Skeptics as “Global Warming Deniers” and “Climate Change Deniers”.

    Now Sheril, with a PHD at Duke, seems like a nice, reasonable scientist when when she was interviewed on NPR recently.

    She lost me, however, when she pointed out [and down her nose, I might add], about the spuriousness of blogs to get scientific information, citing, that the best blog of the year was, “WattsUpWithThat”……a [her words] “Climate Change Denialist Blog.”

    Of course, the NPR host did not challenge that loaded description, into question.

    And just like NPR’s silence, Dr. Kirshenbaum has not responded to many salient questions and emails I have personally sent her.

    THAT is their technique: If they can’t really address the questions [often because they don’t have the data to support it], then they just avoid altogether.

    Sort of reminds me how Christopher Monckton keeps trotting around the globe challenging Al Gore for a debate….and Al Gore runs…like the coward he is.

    Contrary to Al Gore, I will give Joel Shore credit for not fleeing when the weather gets rough and for taking the heat in the kitchen.

    …but he LOSES credibility with many of us when he resorts to the “establishment” “party-line” taking up for the ICC, APS, ACS, etc.

    Bottom line: “Consensus” +” Politics” = “Groupthink”

    Groupthink is ruining the SM today, and we are in an AS embarrassing a chapter in science history, as the chapter that existed during the Spanish Inquisition.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  101. anna v (22:22:38) :
    Lucy Skywalker (01:59:43)

    ” The poll of the [science] museum is interesting, since I would suppose it would be science educated people taking part.
    # 4504 counted in so far
    # 7253 counted out

    But I notice… We’ve seen several such comparison of numbers from this poll, and the total is NOT GROWING AFAIK. Have the organizers got a well-trained dog to eat the homework?”

    Ric Werme has been keeping track of the poll at http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/proveit.html

    You will note that there have been one or two interesting bits of mannipulation (sic) of the poll results.

    On the APS matter, why do not some of the 160 put themselves up for election in a constitutional way? Or does the APS not do democracy?


  102. savethesharks (10:06:07) :

    Lucy Skywalker: “Knowing how extensively AGW has been holed below the water-line, and how well that is exposed here to all who look with an open mind, I’m intrigued as to why Joel Shore keeps on here. Such a closed mind in a trained scientist horrifies me. But it also keeps reminding me that there are many others like Joel.”

    It seems to be a psychological phenomenon like “mass delusion” or “collective cognitive dissonance.”

    Very interesting phenomena that occur in our species from time to time (and that gets even the smartest of us).

    As we are on the cusp of learning more how organisms swarm and school and act as “super-organisms”, the current quasi-religious AGW movement will certainly be a case-study.

    Unparse-able on account of all italics … sorry, Chris, this style doesn’t cut it …
    .
    .
    .


  103. savethesharks (22:00:41) :

    _Jim…..which post? I see my italics frame exactly the quotes that mean them to frame?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    Sorry, Chris, didn’t see this earlier post …

    I’m seeing your entire posts as italicized (in italics).

    Do others see the same thing? (Maybe my browser is having issues!!)
    .
    .

  104. Joel Shore (20:29:15) :
    Earlier I commented:

    “paullm says:
    Months ago WUWT has also presented how exorbitant amounts of Gov. money and support has been devoted to AGW Alarmists for many years while “Skeptics” have received nothing.”

    While I stated an all to nothing funding discrepancy exits I should have accurately described it as “virtually” nothing (The handful of outstanding researchers who you have countered with notwithstanding.). Additionally, I did mention “money and support” which also includes NEA, UN and other Gov. agency and propaganda efforts, not only research.

    SPPI (posted in WUWT, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/climate-science-follow-the-money/) presented the report summarizing the increased Gov. funding ($79 billion since 1989) on climate related matters that opened doors to special interests. It points out, also, that since January hundreds of billions (ARRA) now have been directed to “clean energy investments”. The investment and stakes are all but unyielding to climate objectivity both here and worldwide (UN, IPCC, Copenhagen Treaty).

    As the EPA’s refusal to openly review and debate the IPCC “research” that it relies upon for their CO2 “pollution” finding demonstrates taxpayers funding is used in every way to deprive any AGW non-supportive research or debate from gaining anything close to equal consideration in the public.

    Joel Shore (20:29:15) :
    “Hmmm…You might want to check out the numbers on what Spencer and Lindzen have received in government funding. Spencer (and Christy too?) even was an employee of NASA for heaven’ sake! And, scientists are funded to study science. They are not classified into categories first. And, earth-observing satellite systems are even less likely to be classified as “alarmists” or “skeptics”. (Sort of reminds me of the joke on the Daily Show a few years ago that “the facts have an anti-Bush bias”.)”

    Joel, you do come across as amazingly “innocent” regarding politics and anything, in this case science. Recently, the ARGO Project may have succumbed to essentially data collection equipment (as well as data itself) manipulation by having undesired results discarded. This joins other NOAA, etc. efforts to seemingly bias results through satellite and land surfacestation data and/or equipment, data, interpretation and presentation. While not directly classifying efforts as “alarmist” or “skeptic” this is, in effect, the (perhaps?) result – especially regarding Gov. usage of Media.

    I’ll take your word for anything about the Daily Show but do you really question that how and what “facts” are presented can insert (in your example anti-Bush) bias? Try: out-of-context, spin, slant, collection error, interpretation, ad infinitum.

    Others here have presented many other examples of bias and methods of addressing them. Joel, I think you could make better use of you time and suggest to your APS officials that they attempt to make a more thorough effort at respectably debating this all important matter. They have an obligation to do that considering that they seemingly devote a majority of their efforts to an endeavor fundamentally dedicated to such bias examination and elimination. Alright, so there is always the battle and challenge with (and of) money and power – the glory will forever sway between those and objective inquiry.

    The Games will go on. While the credibility of Science is at stake, it’s the expense that is becoming overwhelming.

  105. savethesharks says:

    “So-called AGW skeptics”, Joel??

    Why do you say “so-called?”…as if, scientifically you can wave your magic censor wand and declare them not to exist??

    I think I have explained before why I think “skeptics” is a misnomer when applied to many of the people who call themselves “AGW skeptics”. People like Smokey are amongst the least skeptical people who I have ever interacted with in terms of believing anything that supports their preconceptions.

    Or would you, as a scientist, and a physicist (as you are ethically obligated to do) assimilate their remarkable and robust objections as real, observed data, and try and figure out what the hell is going on?

    I think I have probably spent more time reading and trying to understand arguments from the “AGW skeptics” side than almost anyone here has spent in trying to understand the science discussed in the IPCC report and such.

    Well Joel, you didn’t really address the ‘hand-picked six cronies’ part (MIGHT THIS THEN BE TRUE?), instead you ever-so-slyly move off in a slightly different direction, on a tangential point, mentioning that the ad hoc commitee members _were_ known to APS members (known how? Known as cronies of Cherry as well?).

    It was not really a tangential point, as Smokey had referred to them as an “anonymous ad-hoc committee” (although admittedly that was not the part of what he said that I quoted, which may be your reason for confusion).

    But, I also did address this “cronies” notion by noting that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this “cronies” charge and that in fact one of the six members was actually a signer of the Oregon Petition and of a letter to President Bush in 2002 from the Heritage Foundation. To my knowledge, none of the other members of the committee had engaged in any such activism in the other direction. But I’ll add something perhaps even more to the point, which is that the Letter to Nature by Fred Singer, Will Happer, Larry Gould, Roger Cohen, and Robert H. Austin says this ( http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Nature_Letter.html ):

    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 would be a little hard to explain how “a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists” becomes a “a rubber stamp committee” of “handpicked…cronies” just because they reach a decision that you don’t like.

  106. KJ says:

    That way believers like yourself can make ridiculously ill-informed statements about the “badies” having “long fought against the science” (that they funded).

    Vincent says:

    The suggestion that oil companies previously campaigned against AGW, seems without evidence.

    oakgeo says:

    Oil & gas companies have fought against the scientific evidence? I don’t even know what you mean by “fought”. AGW was hardly on their radar screens until recently.

    It is not some great secret that an organization called the Global Climate Coalition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition ) existed until it fell apart around 2000.

    It is also no secret that ExxonMobil had in the past (and perhaps still continues in some cases) to fund think-tanks that question the science and lobby against action on climate change such as CEI, Heritage Foundation, National Center for Policy Analysis, the Heartland Institute, and the George C Marshall Institute (see, e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding , http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-acknowledges-climate-change

    You even seem to agree with my “draconian” comment… well, that is politics.

    What I agreed with is that an oil company would tend to view restrictions as more or less draconian.

  107. Joel Shore (12:04:13)

    People like Smokey are amongst the least skeptical people who I have ever interacted with in terms of believing anything that supports their preconceptions.

    Wrong. I am a scientific skeptic. Joel is a true believer who misunderstands the debate.

    This issue is not a debate between those who believe that CO2 is going to cause runaway global warming, and those who believe that it won’t.

    The debate is between those who believe that CO2 will cause runaway global warming — and those who have not been convinced, due to the lack of evidence supporting that belief. The latter are scientific skeptics.

    Because Joel Shore has been unable to provide the necessary empirical evidence to convince skeptics of his beliefs, he gets upset. But those feelings of frustration come from within Joel; they are not forced on him by skeptics, who want solid empirical evidence that CO2=CAGW.

    Computer climate models are not empirical evidence. They are simply a tool — and a fairly inaccurate tool regarding the climate. Also, many purveyors of catastrophic climate change continue to stonewall the requests of other scientists for their raw data and methodologies. That refusal to cooperate is directly contrary to the Scientific Method. Therefore, skeptics reject their unconvincing pronouncements.

    The President of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, Dr. Holger Thuss, explains the problem from a scientific skeptic’s point of view: click.

    I can understand Joel Shore’s frustration. He lacks the necessary real world evidence to convince skeptics that a rise in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. But that is what Joel truly believes, and he gets upset when he is unable to convince skeptics to share his beliefs.

    Skeptics don’t have a particular belief system. Skeptics simply say, “Prove it.” Or at least, provide solid empirical, testable and reproducible evidence that CO2=CAGW. The fact that there is still no convincing real world evidence to support their hypothesis is no reason to abandon scientific skepticism.

    Those claiming to have shown that there were no such events as the LIA or the MWP, and then claiming that current temperatures are far above any temperatures for thousands of years, still continue to stonewall requests from other scientists for full cooperation, and for the disclosure of all of their raw data and methods. The fact that Briffa, Mann and many others deliberately withhold their data makes skeptics even more skeptical of their conclusions. Falsification is central to the Scientific Method, and a hypothesis cannot be falsified without the original data.

    Joel Shore should be pounding the table, demanding that all raw data and its provenance, and all algorithms and methodologies used by others to conclude that carbon dioxide is such a grave threat, must be publicly archived, with no more delays. Further, that those arguing the CO2=CAGW hypothesis must fully cooperate with skeptical scientists by providing any and all information necessary to falsify their hypothesis.

    That is what the Scientific Method requires; because that is how the truth is discovered. Hiding the data makes skeptics suspicious that those alarmists are deliberately scaring the populace in order to receive more financial grants — which would not be nearly so forthcoming if it were shown that rising CO2 is of little consequence.

    If Joel Shore were actually interested in finding the truth, rather than being so determined to convince skeptics of his personal beliefs, he would demand that his fellow alarmists need to promptly make all of their work and data completely transparent to everyone. If their methods and data withstand the scrutiny of skeptical scientists’ efforts to falsify them, then what is left standing is the truth.

    But it appears that the alarmists know very well that disclosing their data and methods would cause their hypothesis to be falsified — and that would cut off a major source of their income. So rather than following the Scientific Method to find the truth, they say: “Trust us.” Skeptics decline.

  108. Dr Shore writes

    ‘It’s not a matter of politics; it is a matter of what regime a substance falls into based not just on its radiative properties but also on its behavior based on its current concentration and rates of injection into and removal from the atmosphere. Water vapor is a very different beast because of the rapidity of its natural cycling through the atmosphere relative to practical anthropogenic injection rates.

    It is ‘the rapidity of its natural cycling through the atmosphere’ that akes it more important than CO2

    Natural cycle deniers, such as Dr Shore want to write water out of our clmate. Only gases we produce are considered by them as ‘greenhouse gases’.

    The WMO does the same.

    The World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) is one of the WDCs under the GAW programme. It serves to gather, archive and provide data on greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O, surface ozone, etc.)

    http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/

    No mention of water.

    ‘Greenhouse gases’ are, according to them, by definition, man-made.

  109. Even though I do not agree with Joel Shore, he at least understands the debating process. Unlike RRKampen, who just made his side look bad. I can respect Joel Shore for backing up his statements, and taking a lot of abuse in this forum. You have to admit he keeps us on our toes, and for that he should be commended. The fact he can voice his opinion here is something that shouldn’t be taken for granted by either side. That being said, good luck showing that we are beyond natural variability and that mankinds signal is distinguishable from the noise, Joel. Also, the big bad oil card no longer holds water. This article shows that neither side is to be trusted with public monies. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16181

  110. I just read the Kleppner APS report, “Ad-Hoc Committee Report on APS Climate Change Statement.” The APS makes it available only to members, but anyone who wants to read it can get it here.

    It’s a stunner. The committee members, acting as agents of the APS and in their professional capacity as highly trained physicists — positions requiring two levels of responsible integrity — decided, in their words, “[to rely] primarily on the 4th Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change, in particular its first volume: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon et al, Cambridge University Press]. (PSB). We have also turned to the NRC report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, (National Research Council, 2006). (STR).

    So there we have it. Official physics is now a combination of the tendentious with the fallacious. It’s as though the APS issued a statement on Astral and Galactic Winds (AGW) after consulting the Encyclopedia of Astrology. The APS and the Kleppner committee were entirely uncritical in their analysis and their decision. It’s shameful.

    Some APS member needs to put up a web-site where other APS members can give their contact information in confidence. If a few thousand members sign in, their views on AGW can be consulted, and a real perception of the scientific opinions of the APS membership can be brought out..

  111. I think its your browser, _Jim.

    I apply the italics exactly where I want them: on the quotes.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  112. Joel Shore: “People like Smokey are amongst the least skeptical people who I have ever interacted with in terms of believing anything that supports their preconceptions.”

    Hmm….if you LOOK at the real, raw data, Joel, that is, what he has said and how he tirelessly references his charts and quotes, then YOU, as another scientist, have to make sense of all that “raw data,” whether you agree with it or not.

    But instead, in haste, you fire out an emotional statement like the one above, and thus step out of your “scientist” mode and turn it into a personal agenda.

    Stick to the science, Joel.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  113. Joel Shore: “I think I have probably spent more time reading and trying to understand arguments from the “AGW skeptics” side than almost anyone here has spent in trying to understand the science discussed in the IPCC report and such.”

    You are evading the question, Joel.

    While I am sure there are plenty of heavy-hitters on here who can easily take you to task on the above broad-brush side-swipe, I will leave that to them. Furthermore that is not what I asked.

    I specifically asked you about you and the 160 “heavy-hitters” who petitioned the APS….about you and them in one room.

    What do you make of their significant objections??

    Do you just call them, as fellow (and mostly more experienced than you) physicists, do you call them insane??

    How do you deal *scientifically* with their objections.

    Would you be willing to debate all 160 of them to prove them wrong???

    Nah I didn’t not think so.

    I knew you were smarter than that!! :-)

    But the point is….YOU have to deal with all of these human “outliers”…..all 160 of them (and probably many more).

    And I heard they are a restless lot!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  114. Smokey: “But it appears that the alarmists know very well that disclosing their data and methods would cause their hypothesis to be falsified — and that would cut off a major source of their income. So rather than following the Scientific Method to find the truth, they say: “Trust us.”
    Skeptics decline.

    WELL SAID!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  115. Another politically incorrect Physicist here.
    I am reasonably convinced that we have experienced a recent (geologically speaking) period of “global warming” (poorly named), at least up until around 2000 or so.
    I am not the least bit convinced that it is exceptional or persistent.
    I am not the least bit convinced that it is caused by human activity, and if it is, I am more unconvinced that it is caused by the emission of “greenhouse gasses”, even given THAT, I am yet even more unconvinced that the culprit is carbon dioxide.
    I guess you’d say I’m pretty unconvinced.
    A politically correct lie is still a lie.

  116. Pat Frank (16:08:01) :….the Kleppner APS report, here.
    (http://climaterealists.com/?id=4362)

    Thanks for the link. It is shameful.

    Robert H. Austin et al – “As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

    Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

    Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can 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.

    20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. Natural processes can account for climate change.

    This is obviously contrary to what IPCC says.

    So what do the committee do? – they consult the IPCC report and shoot it down. Brilliant!

    I have 2 questions: The American Physical Society (APS) has “overwhelmingly rejected” the petition. “Overwhelming” is not unanimous. How many of the committee did not reject the petition and what was their minority view?

  117. While in the posts here I’ve had time to read, it seems that Joel Shore has not said he’s a member of APS but finds it just fine that a small leadership group can decide to to speak for the membership without so much as a scientifically conducted poll to find out the view of the membership.

    I don’t have any qualms of uncertainty concerning how dramatically his views would suddenly shift 180 degrees on this subject(assuming he is in fact a member) if the political pronouncement made had been for the support of creationism of the 4000 yr old Earth fundamentalist variety.

    Hey joel, maybe the APS has a majority of 4000 year old Earth believers and that Cherry and the leadership should go ahead make a procclaimation for this majority. What? No need to conduct a poll first?

  118. Richard says:

    I have 2 questions: The American Physical Society (APS) has “overwhelmingly rejected” the petition. “Overwhelming” is not unanimous. How many of the committee did not reject the petition and what was their minority view?

    You are confusing two things. First, there is the ad hoc committee of 6 people who issued one report. Then, there was the vote of the APS Council to basically follow this report’s recommendation of rejecting the proposed change, keeping the current statement but referring it to the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) “for possible improvements in clarity and tone”. Somewhat surprisingly, I heard from someone who claimed to have heard it from 2 independent sources that even Austin himself voted in favor of this in the end.

    cba says:

    While in the posts here I’ve had time to read, it seems that Joel Shore has not said he’s a member of APS but finds it just fine that a small leadership group can decide to to speak for the membership without so much as a scientifically conducted poll to find out the view of the membership.

    I am a member of APS and have been for over 20 years. There are people here who have noted that science is not decided by voting but by evidence and I tend to agree with that. I don’t want the Council to ask me my opinion on every such question because I don’t think I am best qualified to judge the science in such a broad array of different areas. However, I am pretty confident that the methods that Council has in place are good ones that tend to insure that the statements issued are scientifically accurate.

    That being said, I am also quite confident that a poll of APS members would find that a significant majority supports the current APS statement and did not support the proposed alternative statement. And, I would also think that you would see the membership seriously up-in-arms if the APS put out statements that the majority found to be bad…and it would be easy to run a slate of candidates for council that would kick the current group out and put in a new group more representative of the members.

    Hey joel, maybe the APS has a majority of 4000 year old Earth believers and that Cherry and the leadership should go ahead make a procclaimation for this majority. What? No need to conduct a poll first?

    Well, one can always come up with ridiculous hypotheticals. But, as I have noted above, I think the current way that APS formulates statements on matters of public policy is actually better (and less cumbersome) than doing it by direct polling of its members.

  119. savethesharks:


    Joel Shore: “People like Smokey are amongst the least skeptical people who I have ever interacted with in terms of believing anything that supports their preconceptions.”

    Hmm….if you LOOK at the real, raw data, Joel, that is, what he has said and how he tirelessly references his charts and quotes, then YOU, as another scientist, have to make sense of all that “raw data,” whether you agree with it or not.

    But instead, in haste, you fire out an emotional statement like the one above, and thus step out of your “scientist” mode and turn it into a personal agenda.

    It takes two to tango. I have spent A LOT of time going through Smokey’s charts and explaining to him in detail what is scientifically wrong with them or the conclusion that he draws from them. It doesn’t do any good.

    And, I don’t know how you came up with the claim “he tirelessly references his charts and quotes”. He does not…He most often simply links to the charts. And, in fact, he sometimes does not know himself where they even come from. (I once commented on the fact that so many of his came from ICECAP and he denied that he had ever knowingly posted something from there until I pointed him to specific examples. It hardly seems “skeptical” to me to post charts that you don’t even know the origin of.)

    Would you be willing to debate all 160 of them to prove them wrong???

    Nah I didn’t not think so.

    I knew you were smarter than that!! :-)

    But the point is….YOU have to deal with all of these human “outliers”…..all 160 of them (and probably many more).

    That is pretty much what I do here, isn’t it? But, it is not at all realistic for me to believe that I can convince all “outliers”. About the best I can hope for is to convince people who are closer to being on-the-fence…rather than those who are not so dead-set against the science because of their political or philosophical views that they are not convinceable.

  120. Joel Shore churns away, but only succeeds in convincing himself.
    Sort of like a cargo cultist busily carving up new planes to keep that faith alive.
    Skeptics may be outliers, but usually – and especially in the case of AGW- outliers showing the way to truth and reason.
    The batting average of apocalyptic cult thinking like AGW is .000.
    Not one AGW promoter has shown any reasonable explanation of why their apocalyptic prophecies are going to do any better.

  121. Joel Shore says:

    “There are people here who have noted that science is not decided by voting but by evidence and I tend to agree with that.”

    That’s a good tendency. If Joel keeps working on it, he might eventually understand that the empirical evidence is all that matters in science.

    In the case of the APS Council, they veered away from science and into political advocacy. That’s what is causing their current problems.

    Joel made a statement that shows his mind is made up and closed tight: “I have spent A LOT of time going through Smokey’s charts and explaining to him in detail what is scientifically wrong with them or the conclusion that he draws from them. It doesn’t do any good.”

    I’ve linked to literally hundreds of different charts and graphs here, from numerous different authorities, but Joel Shore has insisted that each and every one of them is wrong. There is not one chart I’ve linked to that Joel Shore can bring himself to admit is accurate. Not a single one; they’re all wrong, no matter where the data came from. GISS? NOAA? HadCRU? It doesn’t matter, they’re all wrong. What are the odds, eh?

    Joel Shore’s typical response is to complain about the starting point of a graph, or the time frame covered. When someone disparages literally everything another poster says or links to, it must be chalked up to a case of cognitive dissonance. Joel’s mind is made up, and when confronted with facts, he responds with emotion.

    If it were not for psychological projection, Joel wouldn’t have much to say: “…those who are not so dead-set against the science because of their political or philosophical views that they are not convinceable.” Um-m… who is it again that’s not ‘convincible’? I’d like Joel to name one person here who’s been convinced, in hundreds of posts, to buy into his CO2=catastrophic man-made global warming conjecture.

    As I made clear in my post @13:48:16, the problem is that the alarmist contingent has failed to provide the necessary empirical evidence to convince scientific skeptics [which are the only honest scientists] that their CO2=CAGW conjecture holds water. It doesn’t, and it will continue to be untenable so long as the alarmist crowd refuses to make their data transparent. By hiding their data and methodologies they are trying to sell everyone a pig in a poke, and Joel Shore’s response is to get angry and upset when skeptics don’t roll over and agree with his emotion-based belief system.

  122. 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.”

    160 called for a change. A commitee of 6 rejected it. THAT is certainly not a majority decision.

  123. Joel Shore: “That is pretty much what I do here, isn’t it? But, it is not at all realistic for me to believe that I can convince all “outliers”.”

    As per usual, you evaded the question.

    I wasn’t asking about those “on here.” (Though there are plenty of heavy-hitters here).

    I am talking about 160 who signed the petition. The list of Who’s Who Department Chair Physicists and what not.

    YOU and them, in the same room.

    You, as a scientist, are obligated to make sense of these 160 outlying sets of raw, “rogue” data.

    It’s easy to tow the party line, Joel.

    It’s difficult to put one’s career, reputation, and funding-source on the line and sign one’s john hancock and say “Hell no.”

    You have to make sense of that data.

    And you aren’t because you can’t.

    It is process called “cognitive dissonance” and it gets the best of us, and is endemic to our species.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  124. Smokey: “By hiding their data and methodologies they are trying to sell everyone a pig in a poke, and Joel Shore’s response is to get angry and upset when skeptics don’t roll over and agree with his emotion-based belief system.”

    And it really IS a belief system.

    It certainly is something….but it is NOT science.

    Soon, very soon, it will be relegated to the halls of junk science.

    And long, LONG after the junk science has been shelved to that sad and embarrassing chapter in human history…psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists who specialize in scientific minds and group-think phenomena…will be studying this well into the next Ice Age.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  125. ******
    savethesharks (21:32:38) :

    I think its your browser, _Jim.

    I apply the italics exactly where I want them: on the quotes.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    ******
    O/T Firefox works fine. That is a problem with IE 8.0

  126. Ron de Haan says:

    There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this:
    The American Geophysical Union is sending science back four hundred years!
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911157302/energy-and-environment/galileo-silenced-again.html

    I don’t know. Without knowing the details of how the AGU meeting is organized, this sounds pretty much like a manufactured controversy. Noone is being silenced. It sounds like all of the papers will be presented…and a large group of them will be in one session. Others will be in other sessions in the conference where the conference organizers thought that they fit better.

    To be honest, if these “skeptics” really want to talk to fellow scientists beyond themselves, they might do better to have their papers spread out in the conference. Chances are that when all grouped in one session, they will pretty much be talking to each other.

    Smokey says:

    When someone disparages literally everything another poster says or links to, it must be chalked up to a case of cognitive dissonance.

    Or, alternatively, it could be that you like to pull almost all of your graphs from junk-science sites like ICECAP. It is not like you are linking to graphs from peer-reviewed sources.

    At any rate, I don’t think I have objected to every single graph. Occasionally, you have linked to a reasonable graph but I have explained how it doesn’t really show what you presumably think that it shows.

  127. Joel Shore says:

    “…it could be that you like to pull almost all of your graphs from junk-science sites like ICECAP.”

    1. ICECAP is one of numerous sources that I get the graphs from that I post. As I’ve pointed out, graphs from NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT and many other sources have been posted. They seem to be acceptable to others, just not to those suffering from CD.

    2. Joe D’Aleo has forgotten more about the climate than you will ever learn. Labeling his site as “junk science” is purely ad hominem, and typical of alarmists’ arguments.

    3. Putting quotations around the word skeptics is an attempt to marginalize those who make the Scientific Method work.

    4. Ducking the repeated point that the alarmist contingent has failed to provide the necessary empirical evidence to convince scientific skeptics [which are the only honest scientists] that their CO2=CAGW conjecture is valid, and always changing the subject, is a tactic used by those who have no reasonable answer.

    5. And constantly ducking the fact that lots of the big names in the alarmist peer review crowd have been discredited for refusing to provide their raw data and methods is not surprising. They are hiding that information for one reason: if they made everything transparent, their CO2=CAGW hypothesis would be falsified.

    I will be convinced that CO2 will lead to climate catastrophe when real, falsifiable, testable evidence is provided that measures the temperature change resulting from a specified increase in CO2. Alarmists claim that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Show us, empirically. Until that happens, I am skeptical of the impotent word games that form the basis for the AGW hypothesis.

  128. Smokey says:

    1. ICECAP is one of numerous sources that I get the graphs from that I post. As I’ve pointed out, graphs from NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT and many other sources have been posted. They seem to be acceptable to others, just not to those suffering from CD.

    Really? You have posted a lot of graphs and it may be true that a few of them came from the sources that you mentioned but I certainly don’t recall them. Hint: A graph from ICECAP that takes HadCRUT data and replots it in a way where it has cherry-picked the time period that is used and perhaps have overlaid a plot of CO2 rise scaled in a very deceptive way does not constitute a graph from HadCRUT.

    2. Joe D’Aleo has forgotten more about the climate than you will ever learn. Labeling his site as “junk science” is purely ad hominem, and typical of alarmists’ arguments.

    Whatever. Here is a graph that you have showed a lot from that site: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2MSU.jpg Even leaving aside the issue of why he started in in 1997 and how it would look if he started it earlier (or why he chose the UAH MSU data in particular), why did D’Aleo (or whoever produced it) choose to scale the CO2 axis so that the rise in CO2 over a 10-year period corresponds to a rise of about 0.65-0.7 C on the temperature axis? Does D’Aleo honestly believe that the IPCC is predicting decadal temperature rises of that magnitude? It would not be hard to look up the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers and see that they say, “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.” [If you want to go with a prediction made before most of the data shown, one could also go with the IPCC TAR Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers prediction that “anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario.”] The only problem would be that if one adjusted the scaling of the CO2 axis in that graph accordingly, it wouldn’t really produce the “desired” effect.

    I would argue that the more charitable interpretation of this graph is that D’Aleo doesn’t know what he is talking about. I will leave it to you to infer what the less charitable interpretation would be! In either case, it really makes me wonder why anybody, let alone someone who calls himself a “skeptic”, would ever trust D’Aleo again on anything. Yet, you not only continue to show graphs from his cite in general, you even show this particular graph (or ones very much like it) after the problem with it has been explained to you!

    I am sorry, but calling oneself a skeptic does not make one a skeptic.

  129. Joel Shore:

    “You have posted a lot of graphs and it may be true that a few of them came from the sources that you mentioned but I certainly don’t recall them.”

    Isn’t that convenient? Not only does blaming a bad memory take Joel off the hook, but the whole post is a red herring, trying to avoid my concluding comment:

    I will be convinced that CO2 will lead to climate catastrophe when real, falsifiable, testable evidence is provided that measures the temperature change resulting from a specified increase in CO2. Alarmists claim that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Show us, empirically. Until that happens, I am skeptical of the impotent word games that form the basis for the AGW hypothesis.

    Since Joel Shore is incapable of providing the empirical evidence measuring the amount of warming due to human emissions, he makes a red herring of graph provenance the issue. That’s what happens when an alarmist is cornered. So, here are a few non-ICECAP graphs that I’ve posted over the past year or so:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    click6
    click7
    click8
    click9
    click10
    click11
    click12
    click13
    click14
    click15
    click16
    click17
    click18
    click19
    click20
    click21
    click22
    click23
    click24
    click25
    click26
    click27
    click28
    click29
    click30
    click31
    click32
    click33
    click34
    click35
    click36
    click37
    click38
    click39
    click40

    click41
    click42
    click43
    click44
    click45
    click46
    click47
    click48
    click49
    click50

    Not one from ICECAP. Got lots more, too. They all say the same thing one way or another: there is no credible basis for climate alarmism.

  130. Hahaha Smokey you kill me. Click click click click.

    I was rolling on the floor when I saw this post. :-)

    —————————————

    JOEL!

    You are dodging Smokey’s questions and you are dodging mine.

    You still haven’t been able to explain the 160 human “outlier” heavy-hitter robust datasets.

    Think of each of these Physicists as normal, healthy trees sampled, not just from one region, but from across the globe.

    ;-) Hint hint.

    But you will not explain their objections, because you CAN NOT.

    Just like you can not produce forth solid REAL data that CO2 is causing you-know-what, as Smokey has asked you to do about 900 times now.

    And your vilification of ICECAP is par for the course.

    Except the longer you stay in your defensive mode (digging yourself in a hole) the less credible you become.

    It is now becoming evident…(and disturbing) of the irony, folks:

    A professional who is peculiarly being emotive, biased, dogmatic, and manipulative in the way they answer questions (or dodge the questions, as the case may be)…is in a field that relies upon the quest for absolute truth.

    Ironic.

    That being said, I think he has a great mind, he is just deceived.

    Hey…it happens to the best and brightest of us all.

    Such accounts are littered throughout the annals of human history.

    There is always time to change, and thus further one’s evolution, by letting loose the shackles of preconceived beliefs and cognitive dissonance.

    Time will tell….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  131. savethesharks says:

    Hahaha Smokey you kill me. Click click click click.

    I was rolling on the floor when I saw this post. :-)

    Yeah…It was pretty sad. I suppose that when one can’t make coherent scientific arguments, one just goes trolling for graphs. Maybe Smokey was hoping to distract us from the fact that he and D’Aleo have been caught using very deceptive plots or that his argument about the APS committee being a rubber stamp committee of cronies contradicts the glowing description of the committee as “a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists” by those who launched the petition (before the committee had rendered their verdict)? I suppose if I were in Smokey’s shoes, I might be trying desperately to change the subject too!

    You still haven’t been able to explain the 160 human “outlier” heavy-hitter robust datasets.

    I don’t understand the question. Do you expect viewpoints to be unanimous? Of those who signed the petition, how many are “heavy-hitters” in field of climate science? Those who could be classified as “heavy-hitters” (which certainly only a fraction of them unless you are very generous with the term) are generally so due to work unrelated to climate or even atmospheric science.

    And your vilification of ICECAP is par for the course.

    And, your and Smokey’s refusal to engage in the substance of my arguments about why that ICECAP graph is very deceiving is even more par for the course. I mean, you guys vilify highly-respected organizations like the IPCC and scientists who are top in the field. Do you honestly think ICECAP is viewed that way by the scientific community?

    A professional who is peculiarly being emotive, biased, dogmatic, and manipulative in the way they answer questions (or dodge the questions, as the case may be)…is in a field that relies upon the quest for absolute truth.

    You may view things that way. However, it is you guys who are continuing to have to come up with grander and grander conspiracy theories to explain the fact that again and again, the scientific community comes down on the side of the scientific consensus. And, you even have to come up with excuses why Exxon-Mobil now touts the IPCC and its scientists work on it. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

    It is almost amusing to see you guys get your hopes up when something like the petition to APS happens…and you are just so sure (or at least hopeful) that this time, the decision will go in your favor and provide the evidence you sorely crave that you are not in the tiny scientific minority that you are. And, then of course, when those hopes are dashed, do you consider the fact that your view of reality might be a little bit warped? No…You just come up with some excuse to dismiss it.

    Smokey says:

    Since Joel Shore is incapable of providing the empirical evidence measuring the amount of warming due to human emissions, he makes a red herring of graph provenance the issue.

    I’m not going to get distracted from the subject of this thread into an “explain to me in a few paragraphs everything about AGW”. There are plenty of places that you can go for such explanations and there are plenty of times here when I have in fact given short summaries.

  132. Joel Shore said “…you like to pull almost all of your graphs from junk-science sites like ICECAP.”

    Well, that’s not true. So in order to show that statement was not true, I posted fifty charts and graphs that I’ve previously posted, many using peer reviewed data. Not one of them was linked from ICECAP [although I do link to ICECAP charts on occasion. And I do not agree with Joel’s opinion that ICECAP is a “junk science” site].

    I just wanted to point out that Joel Shore was being typically wrong when he said I get ‘almost all’ my graphs from ICECAP — which is only one of many sources. I read a lot, and when I come across a chart that I think would be interesting to people, I save it. But as I’ve mentioned, Joel finds fault with all of them; he’s never once admitted that any chart I’ve posted is worthwhile. Why? I think it’s because they contradict what he believes.

    I can easily provide fifty more graphs that I’ve posted from various papers and sites other than ICECAP. Posting those 50 graphs above was done only to show that Joel Shore makes unthinking accusations that are more often wrong than right.

    When Joel sticks to the science he’s better off. But he’s become obsessed with trying to convince everyone here that a rise in a minor trace gas is gonna get us all. If he would provide empirical measurements showing that a specific rise in anthropogenic CO2 can be translated into a specific rise in global temperature, I would sit up straight and pay attention.

    But neither Joel nor anyone else has been able to measure such a relationship. Being a skeptic, I require at least some reasonable, verifiable evidence that a rise in carbon dioxide will cause climate catastrophe. So far, none has been forthcoming, and Joel’s frustration is evident.

  133. Joel Shore said “…you like to pull almost all of your graphs from junk-science sites like ICECAP.”

    Well, that’s not true. So in order to show that statement was not true, I posted fifty charts and graphs that I’ve previously posted, many using peer reviewed data. Not one of them was linked from ICECAP [although I do link to ICECAP charts on occasion. And I do not agree with Joel’s opinion that ICECAP is a “junk science” site].

    Is there something about the phrase “junk-science sites like ICECAP” that confused you? I didn’t say they were almost all from ICECAP…what I said is they tend to be mainly from junk-science sites such as ICECAP. And, by the way, at least #15 and maybe others are from ICECAP, so you didn’t even weed through your garbage very well.

    In those 50, I will admit that you linked to more from reputable sources than you usually do (and there are some for which it is simply impossible to determine what the source is). However, I have very little idea of what many of the plots you linked to are supposed to prove. For example, #48 shows how CO2 from fossil fuel emissions has increased since 1750. How does that relate to any points you are trying to make?

    When I link to graphs, I feel it is my personal responsibility to check that they are a reasonable representation and are not actively deceptive and I also feel that it is necessary to give the context or source of the graph and to explain it and how it relates to the points at hand. You don’t seemed to be burdened by any such sense of personal responsibility.

  134. Joel Shore: “I don’t understand the question.”

    Oh I think you very well do, Joel.

    I have asked you three, now going on four times now to give assimilate the 160 robust human datasets (lol) into your argument, and you have been unable to do so.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  135. I said: “Hahaha Smokey you kill me. Click click click click.
    I was rolling on the floor when I saw this post. :-)”

    Joel Shore says: “Yeah…It was pretty sad.”

    Now don’t you go puttin’ words in my mouth, young’un. ;-)

    Naw Joel….it was brilliant. And hysterical at that.

    You have certainly shown yourself, besides lacking startling amounts of objectivity when backed into a corner in an argument, that you have no sense of humor.

    Hey even when Leif got me good with a snide remark, I remained objective enough to laugh and admit it was a good one.

    He presented you with fifty (50) graphs NOT associated with ICECAP, graphs that are hard, HARD evidence to the contrary of the AGW religion.

    It was a brilliant post….and all you can do is call it “sad.”

    That…..THAT, my friend, is sad.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    Reply: Seriously this bickering needs to come to an end ~ ctm

  136. “It is almost amusing to see you guys get your hopes up when something like the petition to APS happens…and you are just so sure (or at least hopeful) that this time, the decision will go in your favor and provide the evidence you sorely crave that you are not in the tiny scientific minority that you are.”

    Glad that something amuses you, Joel.

    Hopes up?? Who the hell has their hopes up??

    You are greatly underestimating the power of people who are galvanized when they stand in the face of corruption.

    You think those guys actually, ACTUALLY thought they were going to change the 5000-pound dumb gorilla’s mind when they did that???

    Hardly.

    What they did was basically a f*** *** protest to the APS put it ON THE RECORD–for all the world to see–that they profoundly, PROFOUNDLY object.

    And soon, when the weird, science-religion of the great Church of the AGW has been been relegated to the halls of junk-science in history, the protests of those 160 (who put their careers on the line in doing so) be part of that history.

    What history? The Rise and Fall of the AGW Empire.

    Except that this one will not take 500 years.

    More like 5.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  137. savethesharks

    He presented you with fifty (50) graphs NOT associated with ICECAP, graphs that are hard, HARD evidence to the contrary of the AGW religion.

    Actually, at least one was directly from ICECAP, which shows you how carefully he checked them, and many more were from similar sites or God-knows-where (and many were even graphs that I had debunked before). Furthermore, there were others that were in no way hard evidence contrary to AGW. How is this http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0323co2emissions_global.jpg or this http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif contrary to AGW?

    I suppose it was funny in a way, but not the way that I think he intended.

  138. And soon, when the weird, science-religion of the great Church of the AGW has been been relegated to the halls of junk-science in history, the protests of those 160 (who put their careers on the line in doing so) be part of that history.

    What history? The Rise and Fall of the AGW Empire.

    Except that this one will not take 500 years.

    More like 5.

    You keep believing that. How about we check back in 5 years and see what has happened?

  139. Joel Shore: “You keep believing that. How about we check back in 5 years and see what has happened?”

    Sounds good. I was taking a little poetic license with the 5 / 500 thing.

    The real decline and fall will probably take longer, like perhaps 10 years, but it will happen, and it will be relegated to the halls of junk science.

    Meanwhile, as the smokescreen clears…the focus will switch to AGP (Anthropogenic Global Pollution)…where it should have been all along.

    And the focus will shift toward making important distinctions that are not being made right now.

    For instance: Coal dust is. CO2, is not.

    Sound science (and non-political environmentalism) will return someday, but it may take a while.

    Meanwhile, as the AGW house of cards slowly begins to creak and sway…perhaps people will start paying attention to the REAL environmental issues vexing us today.

    Disastrous overfishing of the oceans, the giant Pacific Trash Gyre, the huge environmental hotspots in China and India, etc….etc…..all of these will hopefully resurface as the solvable problems that homo sapiens caused, and now hopefully homo sapiens can correct.

    The AGW smokescreen masks these problems….and the APS’ rigid, bureaucratic party-line is disappointing because of all people, physicists should be well-acquainted with the truth.

    We’ll check back on this in 5 years….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  140. Why should the APS take a position on man-made global warming? Have they taken a position on quantum mechanics? or general relativity? or Darwin’s evolution? They have not and they should not.

Comments are closed.