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
Gene Nemetz says:
What are you suggesting…That they should issue a press release to the media like this http://aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.cfm ?
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.
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.
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?
Smokey says:
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.
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?
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.
oakgeo says:
I don’t strongly disagree with this in all respects but would rephrase it as:
paullm says:
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 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.
Joel Shore (20:09:10) :
I think you did not comprehend what I said Joel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joel Shore (20:09:10) :
Silly explanation of H2O. Please, save that for someone else.
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.
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
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.
.
.
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
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.
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
Seriously, Cherry and Tawanda? Gotta check that out on Snopes.
Argh!
Excessive use of italics Chris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unreadable text!
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
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.
Woops! I was responding to Joel Shore (20:29:15), not (20:09:10).
_Jim…..which post? I see my italics frame exactly the quotes that mean them to frame?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA