Lindzen, Christy and Curry appointed to APS climate statement review panel
Simon from Australian Climate Madness reports:
The American Physical Society, which previously issued a highly alarmist statement regarding climate change, is to review it, and has appointed three climate realists to [address] the panel of six.
Here is the press release, which somehow escaped everyone’s a number of climate skeptic bloggers notice until now.
APS to Review Statement on Climate Change
February 20, 2014
A subcommittee of POPA is reviewing the APS statement on climate change in accordance with the policy to review official statements every five years.
Preparations are under way by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) to review and possibly update the society’s statement on climate change. In the coming months, the APS membership will have a chance to weigh in on any proposed revisions before the society adopts a final draft.
“We intend to keep the membership informed at every stage in this process,” said Robert Jaffe a physicist at MIT and Chair of POPA. “We’re quite eager to make sure that the revision of the climate change statement is done in the most open and orderly way.”
The subcommittee of POPA that is conducting the review posted its background and research materials to the APS website, along with its charge. The research materials include the transcripts of the subcommittee’s January workshop, biographical information on outside climate experts who participated in the workshop, and their slide presentations. These materials are now available online.
The standing policy of the society is to review its statements every five years. The society first adopted the climate change statement seven years ago, but appended an addendum in 2010. The review also coincides with the release of the latest report on the physical science basis of climate change from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The months-long process started last year with the formation of the subcommittee and a steering committee, which is guiding the statement review subcommittee through the review process. In addition to weighing the opinions of experts from its workshop, the review subcommittee is researching information related to climate change and reviewing the roughly 1,500-page climate change report by the IPCC.
If a new statement is drafted, it will be submitted to the full POPA committee in June. Once approved by POPA, it will go to the APS executive board for a vote. If approved there, the proposed statement will be posted on the society’s website for members to read and comment on, likely sometime later in 2014.
Once all of the comments have been collected, POPA will again review the statement and may revise it further based on members’ input. It will then go to the executive board and the full council for a vote on whether the statement should be officially adopted in its final form.
“We’re not rushing this. Climate science and climate change will be around a long time and we want to get this right before sending it out to the membership for review and comment,” Jaffe said.
Source: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/updates/statementreview.cfm
What choice did they have, with 210 months of no warming? The warm has indeed turned.
I assume we have several members of the APS that visit WUWT regularly. Hopefully, they will provide a good review of whatever comes out of this process. I expect Dr. Brown to be quite hard on climate models.
The historic climate is much better explained by a combination of ocean cycles + solar changes. That needs to be made clear. Once people accept there are competing hypotheses then the science can start to move forward again. This can clearly become the consensus killer that is needed to get climate science back on track.
Respect to RobW’s comments. The tide is turning.
Anthony, Anthony
That headline of yours can by the combined sum of alarmist intellectual heavyweights be construed to be either an overt death threat or at the very least you wishing for their noisy demise.
REPLY: No, it’s a turnabout as fair play. Joe Romm used to title numerous posts just like that, and used that very cartoon. Though, David Appell might get upset that I’m not taking this “death threat” seriously enough. – Anthony
Would anyone take a bet on those panel members of the scary persuasion walking out at some point?
True believers THINK that they are seeing it everywhere (climate change), but all I see is weather within normal variation. They always say that “while no single weather event can be…” they imply that ALL weather is due to this mysterious climate change. It is enjoyable to see it all die, slowly at first but now faster. I wondered how far it would go.
I pointed this out yesterday in Tips & Notes.
It begs the question: Just when do the Tips & Notes get read by Anthony? Since the Tips & Notes are voluminous and somewhat abused, Is there a better way to get someones attention to important breaking news? Do the moderators alert Anthony to significant tips?
Should I just email Anthony instead?
REPLY: I get several hundreds of emails per day, sometimes a thousand plus and I do check tips and notes daily. But often it is simply a matter of timing. I’m sorry I didn’t see yours first. – Anthony
I don’t think they were appointed to the review panel.
They participated in a workshop. Which is a step in the right direction.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/#more-14710
“taking our time.’
A little more urgency, a little less red tape might be nice too.
‘In the coming months, the APS membership will have a chance to weigh in on any proposed revisions before the society adopts a final draft.
“We intend to keep the membership informed at every stage in this process,” said Robert Jaffe a physicist at MIT and Chair of POPA. “We’re quite eager to make sure that the revision of the climate change statement is done in the most open and orderly way.” ‘
——————————————————————————
I wish the AMS or AAAS showed such consideration to its members.
Lindzen, Christy and Curry has shown remarkable integrity, resisting the egotism and self-interest that have seduced so many of their peers. I hope they will be able to endorse whatever comes out of this review. After all CO2 remains one of the most taxable molecules in existence, and Western societies are more desperate than ever for financing.
“Once all of the comments have been collected, POPA will again review the statement and may revise it further based on members’ input. It will then go to the executive board and the full council for a vote on whether the statement should be officially adopted in its final form.”
White smoke from the council chambers will signal a return to the scientific method; black smoke… five more years of “extreme weather”.
It’s old news but anyway indicative of changing attitudes.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/say-hello-wave-goodbye/
Pointman
“climate change will be around a long time”
Truer words have never been spoken. Now, if the anti-CO2ers, AGW, ACC (anthropomorphic climate change), or whatever else you want to call them will realize this, maybe we can quit wasting time and resources trying to stop it. The sooner these people (I almost called them idiots, but I’m trying to be civil) catch on the better for the whole world.
Mmm…the sound of Warmist heads asploding.
Music to my ears.
Someone in the APS has taken action that has caused some preliminary work that is critical of “consensus” climate science and I do not believe that those very important scientific questions will just be dropped for disagreeing with the “consensus.” Of course the powers that be at the APS might hide some of the criticisms and soften others. However, it is too early for pessimism. Everyone knows that Judith Curry will give these matters a full airing at her blog. That is a powerful reason for optimism.
3:3 sounds like the makings of a stalemate.
Distinguish committee MEMBERS vs EXPERTS
The APS Climate Change Statement Review states:
Distinguish Members from the Experts that presented evidence to the committee:
APS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios, listing
John R. Christy, William Collins, Judith Curry, Isaac Held, and Richard Lindsen
It is kinda sad really,
This piece links two articles, the first links to another article which then links to the original source.
All of which say that the presentations by the “experts” was made TO the committee.
none of them say that the experts are “on” the committee. So where did you get the list of people who are on the committee???
well, lookee here!!! why, it is right there on the link that you shared!
The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom.
hmmmmmmmm. . . no Christy, Curry or Lindzen to be found!
even worse!!! they are a subcommittee of the panel, not the actual panel for policy (POPA)
So how did their presentations go???
Good for the APS… going back to the core of the scientific method. I’m no God-botherer, but as usual the Bible has something appropriate to say:
“Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance.”
With reference to the APS review of its climate change statement:
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
After more than twenty years of witnessing “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness Of Crowds” I’m not holding my breath. The educational establishment and the media have succeeded in indoctrinating a large proportion of the scientific community. Peer pressure, inertia and group dynamics are powerful forces.
John W. Garrett says:
March 20, 2014 at 9:52 am
“After more than twenty years of witnessing “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness Of Crowds” I’m not holding my breath. The educational establishment and the media have succeeded in indoctrinating a large proportion of the scientific community. Peer pressure, inertia and group dynamics are powerful forces.”
Don’t forget, the farther you stretch the truth, the farther it flies when ‘released’! AKA ‘The BS BackBlast Phenomenon’.
The original post by Tony Thomas (referenced by Australian Climate Madnessproperly distinguishes members from experts. See:
Finally, Some Real Climate Science
“…we want to get this right before sending it out…” Jaffe said.
It’s a little too late isn’t it? It’s more likely there will be a reaffirmation with a slight revision, then five years later an affirmation of the revision with a minor change and so on until 20 years from now the new position will not match the old one of two decades ago, but with a minimum of feather ruffling. In the meantime successive revisions will look substantially the same with no clear victory on either side. Such is consensus science.
Clarification: Tony Thomas also confusingly stated:
As well as later distinguishing the experts: