The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm

Something tells me the liberal news media organizations won't report this in their news.
BUT, the next time some Joe-Blow "human caused" global warming "expert" claims a new species "is dying because of human caused global warming", THAT will make headline news.

Of course direct emmissions aren't the only cause, there are also gasses from burning forests (human caused), heating permafrost (human caused), and cows (human caused).

Of course direct emmissions aren't the only cause, there are also gasses from burning forests (human caused), heating permafrost (human caused), and cows (human caused).

So much for your "scientific consensus" of "human caused" global warming.

Millions of internal combustion engines running at the same time. Hundreds of power plants ALL generating heat. There's your global warming, it has NOTHING to do with carbon emissions.

Alot of f***ing retard "scientists" who don't know shit!!

Everyone knew this would happen sooner or later. The APS show a lot of confidence going against a movement this big.I hope they can get the word out so others will come forward.

Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

They certainly haven't changed their statement on climate change.

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
Email | Print

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.



Where is the link to this quote (if it is one)?

This is a BLOG!!

I could write and publish a blog refuting gravity. If I tried hard enough I could probably get 50,000 idiots on board, too. This doesn't prove shit.

But okay, let's pretend we're not responsible for this problem that even George W. Bush has admitted is a reality...

We're still using up a limited resource, polluting the air with tons of other pollutants, and growing increasingly dependent on a foreign source of energy that comes from the most violent, war-torn region on the planet. But there is some good news:

At least we're bringing Democracy to those poor Iraqis!

Where is the link to this quote (if it is one)?

It's at the very bottom of the OP's link.

The APS show a lot of confidence going against a movement this big.

It isn't going against anything, as far as I can see.

It certainly isn't denying that global warming is occurring.

This is a BLOG!!A Blog that has reported some facts. But if you feel comfortable ignoring them because of the word "blog", more power to you.

We're still using up a limited resourceCoal and oil has been limited since the very first day we started using them. Should we have stopped for that reason, and skipped the entire industrial age? Should we stop using it entirely, and give up the plastics, fertilizers, and drugs we make from them also?

polluting the air with tons of other pollutantsThe cleanest source of energy out there is nuclear power...too bad people like you have stopped us from using it. Until then, the only practical source is coal.

and growing increasingly dependent on a foreign source of energy that comes from the most violent, war-torn region on the planet.Yeah, too bad idiots have prevented us from using the vast coal and oil reserves we have here. The US has the largest coal reserves on the planet, and between ANWR, the Atlantic and Pacific Coastal shelves, and all the shale oil in the West, we have enough to supply all our energy needs for the next 100 years.

This is a BLOG!!If you would have opened the link in the article you might have read the Editor's Comment (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm) from the APS'own website:

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)

Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy “production” by our Earth-bound societies must be faced. Fossil fuel supplies may become unavailable in this century – or the next – but in a finite system, obeying the laws of thermodynamics, non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later (within the foreseeable lifetime of our planet). One major energy resource, being much touted again, is that of the fissioning nucleus. Nuclear power faces three major drawbacks in the public eye: the possibilities of devastating accidents; the possibility of ”proliferation” – the diversion of energy resources and technology into weaponry; the problem of protecting present and future generations from “nuclear ashes”- the long-lived radioactive byproducts of power generation by nuclear fission. For the most part, our society has “stuck its head in the sand” regarding these issues, but we have spent a great deal of money exploring one possible means of dealing with the third problem – burying nuclear wastes deep underground (out of site, ergo out of mind). As the News item in this issue summarizes, the Federal government, after the expenditure of billions of dollars, seems to be ready to start sending long-lived wastes to be buried in Nevada. Many people there object – “not in my backyard”! As physicists interested in the impact of physics on society (and the converse), we are obligated to participate intensely in the public debate on this problem of waste disposal as well as the other two. The final resolutions will have to be political but hopefully they will be well informed by knowledge of the physical possibilities as well as constraints. For example, I am unaware of any public discussion about the practical possibilities of decreasing the amount of long-lived nuclear ashes via the use of fast neutron fission reactors for power generation. I hope to see much more discussion of these issues in the future “pages” of this journal. (I put quotation marks about the word “pages” since it now appears that we may no longer be communicating with you via the customary paper pages; what word(s) should we use?) We know that many of our readers are well informed on these topics and hope that they will share their physical insights with the rest of us – please submit articles, commentaries, letters, and enjoy the summer – whether its warmth is in line with past trends or represents a new climate. (AMS)

Well, here's a shining example of just how ignorant, idiotic, and blinkered we can get when it comes to "progress", or rather a perceived lack of same:
Yeah, too bad idiots have prevented us from using the vast coal and oil reserves we have here. The US has the largest coal reserves on the planet, and between ANWR, the Atlantic and Pacific Coastal shelves, and all the shale oil in the West, we have enough to supply all our energy needs for the next 100 years.See, it's all those idiots' fault, if they hadn't stopped "us" from digging up the coal.
"We" have enough to supply our energy needs for the next 100 years. So what about after 100 years? Or "we don't have to worry about the 100 years after the next 100", type of thing?
If just the US digs up all that low-grade coal and burns it, will they be ensuring an energy supply, and the progress it will bring, or ensuring the inundation of every major coastal city, or will it take India, China, Russia, Oceania and Europe as well, to melt the poles in the next 100 years (or maybe the 100 after), by burning coal?

If someone were to just skim that article, and not be properly wary from long experience with this kind of announcement, they might be misled into thinking it makes claims that it does not.

Many people might believe, for example, that the APS - the society that represents 50,000 physicists - had re-evaluated its earlier support of the warning that CO2 accumulation posed a significant danger of rapid global warming among other debilitating (to humans) climate changes, and very probably explained the warming recently experienced. These people might be fooled into believing something like this: The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change

But that is not so, as we read further on, vaguely paraphrased and hidden at the bottom: Updated 7/17/2008 After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

Some people might think that the headline and opening paragraphs of the article are due for correction, in fact, and that what is written there is basically dishonest now that the APS has corrected what could have been an inadvertent error. But such corrections are not in the style of this political faction, so we "consider the source" and remember not to take them too seriously on factual matters.

Since we are forewarned and wary, we have no trouble spotting the various other weasel wordings and rhetorical tricks in the article - so that (for example) we take note of the absence of hard numbers and accountability behind such assertions as There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion How many is a "considerable presence", and who are they, and what are their objections or arguments ? We have been essentially lied to before, by people who play fast and loose with attributions and assertions claiming to have lots of "scientists" in agreement with them - but whose specific attributions turned out to be misleading at best, and whose arguments were bilgewater.

And reading on in the various supporting articles and quotes, we are not surprised to find an immediate transition from vague handwaving about "solar activity" by the quoted physicists to a more detailed promotion of nuclear power, presented as a technological solution to a natural problem that has no unfortunate political implications for the powers that be. What that promotion is doing in the middle of what was presented as a concerted objection by "significant presence" to various IPCC errors of method and conclusion, I leave for speculation.

What is not speculation is the OP article's reliance on such asserted luminaries of the APS climatological community as Lord Monckton, better known as a tabloid newspaper writer, business consultant, puzzle promotion entrepreneur, and Conservative British politician, than as a physicist of any kind. Lord Monckton has gifted the world with his genius on a wide range of matters, for example his article on "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", but has no experience in climate modeling or related physics. His degree is in journalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley

What is not speculation is the OP article's reliance on such asserted luminaries of the APS climatological community as Lord Monckton, better known as a tabloid newspaper writer, business consultant, puzzle promotion entrepreneur, and Conservative British politician, than as a physicist of any kind. Lord Monckton has gifted the world with his genius on a wide range of matters, for example his article on "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", but has no experience in climate modeling or related physics. His degree is in journalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...n_of_BrenchleyThe usual pavlovian, knee jerk, ad homimen reply of an alarmist. I could rebuke that by asking why Al Gore has been embraced by IPCC? As a scientist, or what? But then I would be using your own tactics.

Fact is that one of APS sites is, and probably was as the stonewalling already has been started , trying to open the discussion. A process which is already already on it's way for some time now and gathering momentum. There are cracks appearing in every layer of AGW science.

The disclaimer on the APS home site, is a disgrace for every scientifical organisation and tells more about the APS than about Monckton.

How many is a "considerable presence", and who are they, and what are their objections or arguments ? Some are mentioned here (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming).

And here's Monckton's reply to the ASP disclaimer: http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/warm-phy-pres.pdf. Maybe you want to respond to the actual contents instead of excreting the usual red herrings?

The usual pavlovian, knee jerk, ad homimen reply of an alarmist. It wasn't me who presented an article about a bogus and long-debunked (more than two years ago) presentation by an incompetent and politically motivated nonscientist to a small subsidiary chapter of the APS as "Global Warming Consensus Explodes".

By the way, are you going to fix your lies, above, about the APS reversing its former stance on the IPCC report? Or does lying like that just not bother you, if it's in an important cause ?
How many is a "considerable presence", and who are they, and what are their objections or arguments ?
”
Some are mentioned here and here. No they aren't. The first link we've been over already in an earlier thread, where you made similar bogus claims about "scientists" and "consensus" - the petition is vague and covers lots of tangents, the list of signatories full of errors and nonscientists and people who claim to have been misrepresented and cranks and so forth. The second is best described in its own words:
This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful. In other words, not what you claimed. You do see the difference, I hope ?
And here's Monckton's reply to the ASP disclaimer: http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/warm-phy-pres.pdf. Maybe you want to respond to the actual contents instead of excreting the usual red herrings? I would be happy to respond to "actual contents" if there were any, but your link is to nothing except a complaint from Lord Monckton about what he considers shabby treatment by the APS.

If that's the kind of "content" you mean, you should understand that it is impossible to comment on it without dealing with Lord Monckton, a political appointee of the Thatcher administration known for his reactionary views, and the author of such intellectual advances as "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", in light of his personal and political beliefs. The man is not a physicist, climatologist, or relevant scientist of any kind. His objection to the APS disclaimer is not a matter of "content".

The only "content" there is that the APS has not, as you and the OP linked article both said and you refuse to apologize for or make right in this thread, reversed any of its positions in the matter, and that no "Global Warming Consensus" has been "exploded", or even challenged.