Physicists Open Climate Change Debate. Will Al Gore Denounce them as “Deniers”?
By Jimmie on Jul 18, 2008 in Oh the Climate, It is A-Changin'
Al gore picked a really bad week to make his Really Important Speech. The Association of Physical Scientists has reversed its position on anthropogenic global warming. Where it once considered its position “incontrovertable” it is now sponsoring open debate on the matter and saying that “[t]here 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”.
This is a big deal. The APS represents some 50,000 physicists worldwide. While physicists are not necessarily experts on the matter of AGW or climate in general, they are scientists. They can recognize when something is scientifically sound and when it’s hanging its hinder parts out in the breeze a little bit. These guys are rigorous thinkers and skeptics by nature, which is a good thing when it comes to the overall debate on climate change. They’re also detail-oriented to a fault. You kind of have to be when you deal with particles that can seemingly appear out of nowhere in a tiny fraction of an instant and disappear just as quickly.
They’re opening the debate among themselves with a paper written by Lord Christopher Monckton, who has writted a number of detailed articles on AGW from the so-called deniers’ point of view. He’s one of the Major Heretics among the Cult of Global Warming and I suspect that the discussion within the APS will be robust. I’m looking forward to it.
We need more of this. Lots and lots more.
(via memeorandum
Stumble it!
What you of course didn’t mention was the follow up news release by the same organization today which said that the group responsible for the latest skeptisism of global warming represents but just a few of the scientists (< 5%). Also the head of that small group is a world renowned global warming denier – so it makes sense he would tout this new opinion.
I understand facts are the missing link in the right sides evolution – we all know that. But to continue to deny humans are responsible for some of the ills of this planet is mystifying. Your children want a clean, livable planet. Why can’t the right side do what Jesus would do?
Fred | Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
Fred, that there is any number of scientists on the side of the dissent directly contradicts the view that the debate is over. The fact is that the debate is far frmo over and that the more we look at the world’s climate, the more we see that the dogmatic view of Al Gore and those who follow him is wrong.
Your second paragraph is a perfect example of the distortion you feel the need to use. No one – but no one – is denying that humans aren’t responsible for “some of the ills” the planet faces. You can’t even write two paragraphs without telling a ridiculous falsehood. I don’t hold out any hope that you could reasonably debate the issue. I hope that your “side” brings better debaters to the table.
Jimmie | Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
It’s the Left that always denies facts. No one denies that humans are responsible for some of the ills of this planet. The problem is, the Left distorts reality. They are spreading hysteria. The end of the world is near. It’s not. The Left acts like their theories are proven, undeniable facts. We don’t know to what extent human activity affects the health of the environment. The arrogant Left declares “facts” that are nonexistant.
Bob | Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
-The Association of Physical Scientists has reversed its position on anthropogenic global warming.-
This response, from Al Gore, just in:
“I tell you, ManBearPig is real! I’m cereal!! Please pay attention to me!!!
Oh, drat…sometimes I wish I hadn’t invented the dang internet….”
Karen Schell | Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
Karen……. I love you! Well said!
But actually, global warming is scheduled to hit us in earnest, Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow!…. I’m super-cereal!
Cheers!
MiltonF | Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
Shouldn’t you update this to reflect that you were wrong?
Daniel Morgan | Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
Let me think, Daniel.
Nope.
When I’m wrong, I’ll let you know.
Jimmie | Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
But you ARE wrong.
APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
As to Monckton’s article APS had this to say:
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Even better. Monckton has no scientific expertise…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
So you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
In spite of this, I am betting I won’t be seeing a retraction.
Dominion | Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
You really do need to read the post I’m working on. It should be up in about 30 minutes.
The upshot is, that disclaimer is – surpise, surprise – not telling the truth.
And Monckton, despite his lack of scientific credentials (save working for the British Prime Minister in a scientific capacity, which doesn’t count, right?), was invited by the APS to submit the paper for the specific purpose of fostering debate.
Which is a dramatic change from their former policy of “the matter is closed”.
Jimmie | Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
No, Monckton was NOT “invited by the APS to submit the paper.”
He was invited by “an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society,” of which APS has reaffirmed — look right above, it’s reprinted in Dominion’s post — “This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.”
Why are you incapable of understanding this?
Dan | Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
Dan, do read my post from today. He was invited by the only newsletter the APS has, so it’s clear he was not invited by Newsweek or the Evil League of Evil. He was writing for a publication operated by and published for members of the APS. It is an APS journal.
Second, his paper was peer-reviewed. As he specifically noted, his paper was reviewed by a member of the APS. Revisions were suggested and made. So, yes, it was peer-reviewed because it was, amazingly enough, reviewed by a peer.
Stamp your feet all you want. It doesn’t change what happened. You’re much better off actually trying to engage on the merits here than you are attempting your silly pedantic points. They miss the mark and make you look as if you really don’t want honest debate on an important subject.
Jimmie | Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
Um, not quite -
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403
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.”
———————
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/18/american-physical-society-reaffirms-it-is-incontrovertible-human-emissions-are-warming-the-globe-and-must-be-cut-beginning-now/
Facts are a bitch, aren’t they?
Gulliblerighties | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
“which doesn’t count, right?”
No retard is does not. This is due to him have NO CREDENTIALS FOR THE POST! ZIP. NADA.
You could serve as a mensa advisor to GWB and it would be the same as you are obviously not in the mensa league.
You were wrong Jimmie putz. Admit it, go back to your playpen and leave the real problems to the grown ups. Focus on how to get your head out of your a&* maybe.
CEMan | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
So what you are saying is that you trust Monckton, a man that has no scientific background (and please, telling me he offered scientific advice to the government tells me nothing. The man’s degree is in JOURNALISM. That does not fill me with confidence that his advice was worth the paper it’s was written on.) over the premier organization of physicists. One wonders, if that is the case, why you care what the APS said. You obviously do not take them seriously.
As far as the paper that Monckton wrote, here is an easy to read breakdown of exactly where Monckton got it wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/5s96ec
Not that I think you will understand the science any better than Monckton did.
Once again you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. And I am betting you will still do nothing about a correction. Man I would be embarrassed if I were you, but one thing I have learned in a long life, nothing embarrasses the right wing.
Dominion | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Blah, blah, blah, fellas.
The facts are simple. The APS once considered AGW “incontrovertible”, now their in-house journal, published by and for their members, is soliciting debate. That is a change of position. It’s not tough to understand Well, for you, sure. But not for normal people without an axe to grind.
Instead of whinging about the folks who have slipped your speech codes, why not actually get involved in the debate, okay? Do something useful.
Jimmie | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
And by the way, for you progressives who can’t seem to get over your caste system thinking about “credentials”, let me point out that Albert Einstein didn’t have credentials as a groundbreaking physicist either.
Bill Gates didn’t have “credentials” as a businessman. Ernie Pyle didn’t have credentials as a journalist either (he dropped out of college to take a job as a reporter). Stephen King didn’t have credentials as a novelist.
You don’t need credentials to do rigorous work. It seems funny to me that someone who calls himself “conservative” would have to remind people who calls themselves “progressive” of that. But perhaps it’s more sad than anything else.
Jimmie | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
And Jimmie tards credentials are? They sure do not include rational thought…
You are WRONG Jimmie-tard.
Time to wake up and eat your pbj and drink your milk Jimmie.
CEMan | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Credentials? Hell, Monckton doesn’t even know that there is no such thing as “degrees Kelvin”, as he puts it in his paper. Sorry, m’Lord, but it’s just “Kelvins”.
But hey, if a guy who doesn’t know how to properly express temperature scale measurements is the guy you want to tout as your expert on climate change, be my guest.
BeingThere | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
@ Jimmie
It amazes me how the right continues to deny the importance of credentials. Would you have surgery done by someone without a medical degree? Scientists (including physicists and climatologist) require just as much (probably more) expertise than surgeons to figure out how extremely complex systems work (just so you know, modeling the earth’s climate is an immensely complex task). You simply sound like a bitter moron who’s angry because he didn’t get into grad school (or even college possibly)
Jimbo | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Jimbo – Your elitism is showing. There is a vast difference between performing surgery and demonstrating more knowledge of science than either you or I have. If you follow what you call reasoning to its logical conclusion, only those certified by the government (through its approved educational system and credentialing process) will be allowed to speak on any matter. By the by, though, the right does not pooh-pooh credentials. We conservatives are generally open-minded enough, though, to accept that in a great many fields, experts may be self-made.
Your insistence on attacking the man and not his message speaks volumes of the strength of your argument.
Jimmie | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
And have you the credentials to correct Lord Monckton?
Just so you know, the term “degrees Kelvin” was the appropriate term to use up to 1967, when the official designation was changed to “Kelvins”. The alternate form seems entirely appropriate to use, if not canonical. At least this credentialed expert believes so. As do all these papers written since 1967 in the publication Science.
I will suppose that you consider them less than knowledgeable in their fields as well. Consistency above all, yes?
Jimmie | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Jimmie, you are a perfect example of why we can’t have civilized debate in this country.
First of all, you are obviously not a scientist and have no idea how to even interpret data that is presented to you, yet you feel that your opinion is equally valid to that of a scientist who has spent half his life studying this subject. If you’re talking about civil rights or something that every one has experience with, then sure you don’t have to be an expert. But if you are talking about a complex science that requires interpretation of mathematical models and knowledge of years of literature then yes, like a physician/surgeon, you need to have some credentials for your opinion to be worth anything. Do you even know what “peer reviewed” means?
Second, you can’t admit when you are wrong. Do a Google search for “aps climate” and the top 5 sites that pop up clearly show that the APS’s stance on climate change has not changed.
You are right about one thing though, my elitism probably is showing. But maybe you can understand this after you’ve spent 5 years after college getting a PhD and then have morons come along and pretend to be experts after reading a couple biased websites.
Jimbo | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Jimbo – So your opinion boils down to “shut up and know your place”. Gotcha. Duly noted.
However, since I’m paying for the microphone here, let me say two things. One, I’ve never claimed to be a climate expert. You will not find such a claim here at all. Two, you cite “websites” to prove your point. Are they credentialed websites? Were they written by people with doctoral degrees in climatology? If not, then the hot air created by your blazing hypocrisy is a greater threat to this planet than any carbon my activities might produce this year.
Third, you’re not in the least interested in civilized debate. If you were, you would have attempted to have one instead of launching into an elitist and classist posture that specifically prohibits debate with anyone who does not meet your exacting standards which, I suspect, would eventually include no one at all. You don’t want debate. You want compliance, conformity, and obeisance.
Sorry, but I’ve seen that pop up in history a few times and I don’t look good in a brown shirt.
Jimmie | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
best blog i ever seen about this article! This is a very informative post. this will help me in my personal life and my works in dubai.
ارایشگاه بیتا | Jul 23, 2008 | Reply