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
Let’s see, 47,000 members – 6 committee members = 1 to 7833.3333… That clearly makes a “consensus.”
Smokey says:
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 )
hunter- 17:38:54- Arrhenius was a eugenics fan? What an ignominious track record!
That is a very interesting tidbit.
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?
“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!!
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 .
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?
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
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.)
Not sure if you were joking, but that 8% or 10% is a complete myth…
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.
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.”
What percentage of APS council members’ income is directly or indirectly dependent on taxpayers’ money?
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…
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?
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!
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?
“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?”
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!
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!
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.
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?
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.
More on how consensus science, the Noble committee and terrible outcomes are not limited to just climate science, but are strangely intertwined:
http://www.answers.com/topic/svante-arrhenius
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Statens_institut_f%C3%B6r_rasbiologi
Joel Shore is rather transparent and clumsy in his apologetics for the APS, no?
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
MissyMiz 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.