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
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
savethesharks says:
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!
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 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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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
“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
savethesharks
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.
You keep believing that. How about we check back in 5 years and see what has happened?
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
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.