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
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?
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.
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
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”.
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.
” … 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 ?
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.
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.
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.
“”” 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.
And when Lubos Motl uses argumentum ad Hitlerium then I despair.
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…
The Heritage Foundation needs another brain fair.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
anna v (13:55:02) :
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.
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.
Dave says:
Yes, because if Happer claimed this with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, then it still must be true?
R Pearse says:
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:
x says:
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.
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.