The Shotgun Blog
« Think of the children, dismantle the schools | Main | Al & Mike Show Episode 32 - LIVE »
Thursday, July 17, 2008
I guess this now means the evidence is 'controvertible'
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."
Hat-tip to Drudge
Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 17, 2008 in Science | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553c278868834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I guess this now means the evidence is 'controvertible':
Comments
Don't tell Snowrunner -- you might give him a heart attack!!
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-17 5:14:37 PM
Global warming could be a dire and imminent threat, like an asteroid coming to earth, and Kyoto still could not solve it. Wealth transfer is a scam, pure and simple. Resistance to it is glory.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-17 5:28:03 PM
One of the casualties of big government has been the politicization of science. Instead of a diversity of views all rigorously debated, scientific organizations seem quick to demand consensus from their members so that they can hand the government the neatly packaged data it needs to pursue some public policy objective. Rush to consensus, end the debate and then use the “irrefutable” data to drive some coercive legislative agenda – this is how government money corrupts the scientific process.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-17 5:31:54 PM
Terry,
Before the avalanche of nit-pickers arrives, I'd like to point to the money quote:
"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."
In other words, there is no consensus and never has been.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-17 5:32:42 PM
"very probably likely to be primarily" - they sure sound confident, don't they?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-17 5:34:45 PM
Not at all. I downloaded the paper just now and have started reading it, but the headline (and I guess the smoking gun) is a bit misleading. It's not APS that has changed it's stance.
From the letter of the editor:
"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."
In other words: They want to take the political bullshit out of the equation and concentrate on the science, and hey, that's all I am for.
"We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me ([email protected]) 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!"
It will be interesting to read the papers that are going to come out in the next little while via them. Already bookmarked the site.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 5:35:51 PM
Snowy,
"In other words: They want to take the political bullshit out of the equation and concentrate on the science, and hey, that's all I am for."
Agreed.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-17 5:47:13 PM
Have you all heard the latest missive from Big Al of Gore? He has just proclaimed the Arctic ice will be all melted in five years. It's settled.
No more Igloos. No more Polar Bears. Oh the tragedy of it all.
It's all our fault, it's gotta be, otherwise he wouldn't be telling us we must do something about it.
Wonder if he's aware of the effect seismic activity under the Arctic ice might have on it?
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-07-17 5:57:43 PM
The planet Mars is also warming...really.
I guess that means that not only is their life on Mars, it is complex life capable of industrialization...very sneaky industrialization because somehow NASA's Mars mission missed the smoke stakes and Hummers.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-17 6:06:00 PM
Matthew hit the nail on the head. Mix politics with science and you no longer have science, but science fiction or junk science. Unfortunately this is not limited to the global warming scam, as there are many other areas where political correctness has won over science and science research.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-17 6:14:41 PM
So,
I've finished reading the "It's not us" piece, here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
First thought is that he makes some interesting points, I got lost in some of the math, but overall the reasoning sounds interesting.
But of course I have a nitpick point here.
Why is he referring to a 2004 paper by Douglass:
"However, as Douglass et al. (2004) and Douglass et al. (2007) have demonstrated, the projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas warming in the tropical mid-troposphere is not observed in reality."
Usinga 2004 paper whose methodology has been torn a few times by a variety of people makes it into this is a bitt odd to me. But hey, I am sure someone here can explain.
The 2007 paper didn't fare much better really, both the data they used as well as their statistical analysis has been attacked by a few people in the field.
Of course, the argument on here will be that everything that doesn't "follow the piper" will be attacked and as such I should just ignore that.
Secondly.
This isn't really a study. It's mainly a Meta Study based on other published works. He DOES make some interesting observations of the way the IPCC report has been compiled / explained, but the list of the studies that support his conclusion reads like the same dozen or so people that have been around now for a long time. There is nothing "new" or "original" on it but it makes me curious as to how the original IPCC study came up with some of it's numbers, the way this piece reads it's like they pulled them out of a hat.
Finally: I never understood the obsession people seem to have developed with CO2, there is a lot more stuff we blow into the atmosphere on a daily basis, not to mention that some of these (e.g. Methane) appear to be way more potent, but as I understand it none of the major climate models (or commentator) so far seems to have concentrated on that.
It'll be interesting to see what the next report is going to take issues with.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 6:32:25 PM
Snowy
"Of course, the argument on here will be that everything that doesn't "follow the piper" will be attacked and as such I should just ignore that."
I thought you wanted to take the political BS out of it.
"Finally: I never understood the obsession people seem to have developed with CO2, there is a lot more stuff we blow into the atmosphere on a daily basis, not to mention that some of these (e.g. Methane) appear to be way more potent, but as I understand it none of the major climate models (or commentator) so far seems to have concentrated on that."
I hope the methodology used to contruct the models is reviewed and I'd like to see an assessment of the models for correctness and completeness. Barring that, a string of accurate predictions will suffice.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-17 6:54:43 PM
I thought you wanted to take the political BS out of it.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 17-Jul-08 6:54:43 PM
Mmmhh? Back to your old way of quoting out of context and then only replying to the portion you think you can get away with?
-----------------------------
I hope the methodology used to contruct the models is reviewed and I'd like to see an assessment of the models for correctness and completeness. Barring that, a string of accurate predictions will suffice.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 17-Jul-08 6:54:43 PM
From my understanding the models are constantly tuned and adjusted as new data comes in, in how far this has validity to his points I can't speak.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 7:03:27 PM
Snowy,
"Mmmhh? Back to your old way of quoting out of context and then only replying to the portion you think you can get away with?"
Mmmhh? Back to your old way of taking a partisan shot then denying any such motivation instead of fessin' up and movin' on.
"From my understanding the models are constantly tuned and adjusted as new data comes in, in how far this has validity to his points I can't speak."
That is my understanding as well. Except, I would like to know whether the model as such can be verified for accuracy. Tinkering when it's already broke could make it right or make it broker. :-)
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-17 9:18:04 PM
water dog:
The good news is that science trumps B.S. every time.
And, creating false prophecy is total B.S., since nobody knows what's going to happen in the future.
I'll continue to take any other prophecies about warming, cooling, wetter, dryer, polar bears, snakes and such as what they really represent ... an inability to face up to the present.
I will continue to follow any further scientific discovery with curiosity and amazement, but will continue to call B.S. on the B.S.ers. Not naming any names ...
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-17 10:20:50 PM
More going on than meets the eye. First, the global warming business of transferring wealth, as Zebulon mentioned on the first comment, seems to correspond with the apparent collapse of the communist power in Russia. The Kyoto would be a vehicle for weakening the west by way of carbon offsets, and empowering the left. Second, frightening children about the way their parents/grandparents destroyed the planet would set the children up to deny their parents and to harken to the leftist propoganda. So, stick to the science but beware of the subtle inferences of casual references to catastrophic prophecies.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-07-17 11:33:13 PM
Agha Ali Arkahn @ 11:33:13 PM: Right on, you've nailed it.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-07-18 5:18:45 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.