PDA

View Full Version : Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate


pjc
July 20th, 2008, 09:23
Michael Asher (http://www.dailytech.com/ContactStaff.aspx?id=44) (Blog) (http://www.dailytech.com/blogs/%7Emasher) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM



http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/8710_monckton.jpg
Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

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 (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm) 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 (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm) 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."

Contender
July 20th, 2008, 11:24
bring on the moonbats!

come on put your bowls down long enough to construct another irrational, fact-disregarding, opinion.

popcorn is in the machine...

Mot51560
July 20th, 2008, 11:58
Not according to their website.http://www.aps.org/

TreyP
July 20th, 2008, 13:04
Not according to their website.http://www.aps.org/

That's what happens when you quote Blogs as fact.:rolleyes:

Alex Paterson
July 20th, 2008, 15:07
Not according to their website.http://www.aps.org/




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/dezertf150/200px-Nelson_Muntz.jpg

ha ha

-Alex :)

Ziggy
July 20th, 2008, 15:26
That's what happens when you quote Blogs as fact.:rolleyes:



Its what their website claims to be.

Who knows the real facts anyway and do we think they are really going to tell us?

JrSyko
July 21st, 2008, 16:35
bring on the moonbats!

come on put your bowls down long enough to construct another irrational, fact-disregarding, opinion.

popcorn is in the machine...

Who are the moonbats now?

Just another fine example of PJC's "posts". Complete BS.

Get a grip.

Contender
July 21st, 2008, 18:00
Who are the moonbats now?

Just another fine example of PJC's "posts". Complete BS.

Get a grip.

Your answer counseler..


Moonbat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Moonbats)
Jump to: navigation, search

Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy") is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to anyone that is believed to be liberal or on the left. "Wingnut" (or "right wing nut") is frequently preferred as the analogous epithet aimed at the political right.[1]

pjc
July 22nd, 2008, 08:23
Who are the moonbats now?

Just another fine example of PJC's "posts". Complete BS.

Get a grip.


Now now Travis.

It seems that the author jumped ahead of comments of a few members of the society which then caused the clarification by APS. An honest mistake on my part as I caught the article before the APS responded.

Now, what still stands is that there is no consensus on MMGW today and not likely anytime soon.

pjc
July 22nd, 2008, 11:21
Hmmmm! It seems the news persists. http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

EVASIVE RESPONSE TO VISCOUNT MONCKTON'S LETTER FROM APS PRESIDENT

When is peer review not peer review? When a beehive says so! ("Bienenstock" is German/Yiddish for "beehive")

Thank you for your message concerning the American Physical Society's treatment of the article by Lord Monckton in the Newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society. I am writing to discuss issues raised by some of you.

Some of those writing to me have claimed that the American Physical Society is censoring Lord Monckton's article in the Newsletter of the APS' Forum on Physics and Society. That is far from the case. The article has been presented and retained in the form agreed upon by him and the Newsletter's editor. You will find it readily available on the APS' website in that form. Indeed, there was absolutely no censoring. The APS did not even do a scientific evaluation or peer review of the article.

Lord Monckton's presentation of the interaction between him and the editor indicates clearly that the editor's review was aimed at ensuring the clarity and readability of the article by the intended audience. As Lord Monckton points out in his covering letter to me, "Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain." That is, the review was an editorial review for a newsletter, and not the substantive scientific peer review required for publication in our journals. No attempt was made to analyze the scientific substance of the article and no censoring was performed.

As indicated above and in Lord Monckton's letter to me, the article appears in the form agreed upon by Lord Monckton. Some people and news services misinterpreted the Newsletter publication of one editor's comments and Lord Monckton's article as a retreat by the American Physical Society from its official position on the contribution of human activities to global warming.

Consequently, the APS felt it necessary to ensure that its official position was known both to those who logged on to the APS website and those who had followed a link to Lord Monckton's article on our website and were unaware of the context in which it appears. That is the origin of the comment that appears at the top of the article on the website. I am sure that you would not want the Society's position to be misunderstood in this important matter. I hope that this clarifies matters for you. Let me thank you again for your interest in the American Physical Society's activities.

Arthur Bienenstock, President, American Physical Society





MONCKTON REPLIES

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

I have had your notice of refusal to remove your regrettable disclaimer from my paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Since you have not had the courtesy to remove and apologize for the unacceptable red-flag text that, on your orders, in effect invites readers of Physics and Society to disregard the paper that one of your editors had invited me to submit, and which I had submitted in good faith, and which I had revised in good faith after it had been meticulously reviewed by a Professor of Physics who was more than competent to review it, I must now require you to answer the questions that I had asked in my previous letter, videlicet -

1. Please provide the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it (if any) who considered my paper (if anyone considered it) before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper;

2. Please provide a copy of this rapporteur's findings (if any) and ratio decidendi (if any);

3. Please provide the date of the Council meeting (if there was one) at which the report (if any) was presented;

4. Please provide a copy of the minutes (if any) of the discussion (if there was one);

5. Please provide a copy of the text (if any) of the Council's decision (if there was one);

6. Please provide a list of the names of those present (if any) at that Council meeting (if there was one);

7. If, as your silence on these points implies, the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, please explain with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts -

primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed, when it had (let us have no more semantic quibbles about the meaning of "scientific review");

secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and,

tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

And, if the Council has not in fact met to consider my paper as your red-flag text above my paper implies, how dare you state (on no evidence) that the Council disagrees with my conclusions?

8. Please provide the requested apology without any further mendacity, prevarication, evasion, excuse, or delay. Finally, was the Council's own policy statement on "global warming" peer-reviewed? Or is it a mere regurgitation of some of the opinions of the UN's climate panel? If the latter, why was the mere repetition thought necessary?