Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

No wonder Gore has switched from global warming to renewable energy.

This is not even close to being true. The following is posted on the APS website.

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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

In other words, Retarded Doofus lied again...

Truth is not a priority for global warming deniers like Doof or the silly websites they frequent and perpetuate. Considering this is debunked clearly on the front page of the APS website, one has to wonder how they can be so profoundly naive and lazy.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

In other words, Retarded Doofus lied again...

Nonsense.

You need to distinguish between the messenger and the author.

Any dimwit with the merest of intellects would understand, that I posted the article for the consideration of the interested public.

I did not certify or validate the content of the article. I have posted completely wacky items by authentic barking moonbats that were wholly goofy. The reader ultimately makes his own judgements about truth and accuracy.

That being said, what are the "takeways" from the subject article?

1. The author of the article appears to have stretched editorial privelege beyond the bounds or reason and accuracy by claiming that the APS "has reversed its stance on climate change". A careful reading of the article does not offer convincing support of that claim.

"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."

2. There apparently IS genuine contention within the APS community over the organization's assertion of "incontrovertible" evidence of human caused climate change. So much for the claim of "scientific consenses".

I predict that we can look forward to MORE, not LESS, evidence of disintegrating "scientific consensus" over human caused global warming within scientific organizations.

The Respected Doofinator

Tbar wrote:

This is not even close to being true. The following is posted on the APS website.
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.

Also notice that the article referred to APS memeber and not the organization itself. The members may have a different view than the offical organization. Kinda like how unions may support one canidate but the members voted for someone else.

how dare this body actually ENCOURAGE DEBATE? Everyone knows that the debate is over! Gore got his prize, and that's that, no more debate. Now Gore has invented wind power and solar power, so stop arguing.

Al Gore can be slightly self-egotistical. Having said that, the conservative talk show hosts that think we have unlimited oil that we are entitled too are self-serving windbags who I would personally put on the front line in Iraq with an outdated blunderbuss gun to protect our VITAL American oil interests, Seee yaaa1. Self-serving, selfish morons that they are......

pedro_einstein wrote:

Al Gore can be slightly self-egotistical. Having said that, the conservative talk show hosts that think we have unlimited oil that we are entitled too are self-serving windbags who I would personally put on the front line in Iraq with an outdated blunderbuss gun to protect our VITAL American oil interests, Seee yaaa1. Self-serving, selfish morons that they are......

In 1900 they wondered what to do with all of the horses needed by the year 2000. Let's have faith in progress.
Oil is bad for peace but global warming will be to liberals what WMD's were to neocons. Myths and lies.

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Nonsense.
You need to distinguish between the messenger and the author.

The usual crap about 'I just passed it on' to allow one blogger to post crap and then five thousand 'ditto machines' to try the 'argument by popularity'. It remains that you posted crap. Every dipshit that posted the same crap deserves to be told how stupid they are for not reading and checking the article against FACTS.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
The usual crap about 'I just passed it on' to allow one blogger to post crap and then five thousand 'ditto machines' to try the 'argument by popularity'. It remains that you posted crap. Every dipshit that posted the same crap deserves to be told how stupid they are for not reading and checking the article against FACTS.

Before you pee in your pants with giddyness, Little Twit-let, you might want to contemplate the following:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2008...

And:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stor...

And, from the editor of the APS, Jeffrey Marque:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2008...

"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."

Sounds to me like the APS might be admitting that what was "incontrovertible" is, in fact, controvertible.

The Respected Doofinator

Ugh, an article written by Michael Asher (who, if you look through his archive, would not exactly be called a pillar of journalistic integrity) documenting the results of one denier, The Viscount of Monckton.

In case you actually care about, oh, say, the actual science rather than just a shock-and-awe headline you can read and repeat to your physics-illiterate friends ad nauseam, here's where the esteemed Viscount went wrong:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

In case you don't read thermodynamics, the short translation is: If I put less accurate physics into my model and mix units that shouldn't be mixed, the world only warms 1/3 as much!

AstroMike wrote:

Ugh, an article written by Michael Asher (who, if you look through his archive, would not exactly be called a pillar of journalistic integrity) documenting the results of one denier, The Viscount of Monckton.
In case you actually care about, oh, say, the actual science rather than just a shock-and-awe headline you can read and repeat to your physics-illiterate friends ad nauseam, here's where the esteemed Viscount went wrong:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
In case you don't read thermodynamics, the short translation is: If I put less accurate physics into my model and mix units that shouldn't be mixed, the world only warms 1/3 as much!

Dear Mr. Smarty Pants:

Lots of the typical "RealClimate.org " snarky ad hominem, but the Physics establishment is taking note of the fact that real, authentic scientists are slipping through the concertina wire and escaping from the indoctrination camps:

From the editor of the American Physical Society, Jeffrey Marque:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2008 ...

"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."

Sounds to me like the APS might be admitting that what was "incontrovertible" is, in fact, controvertible.

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear Mr. Smarty Pants:

This is rich...whenever anyone actually tries to debate the actual *science* of the issue instead of just the usual "Them libruls r so dum" or "Algore is a p00piepants", it gets immediately shot down as someone trying to be a smarty pants.

I think the problem stems from the fact that those who actually understand the science behind global warming can actually derive why it's true. Those who don't understand the science, well, they just read pundit editorials from townhall and nationalreviewonline. A consensus of uninformed individuals does not make objective truth.

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

Lots of the typical "RealClimate.org " snarky ad hominem,

Okay, so instead of playing the ad hominem card, argue the merits of the Viscounts analysis on scientific grounds.

It's simple - you can't.

Earth's emission is not a blackbody, nor is the Sun's. Earth's climate is being forced, and so can't by modeled as being in thermodynamic equilibrium. Monckton assumes that there is no lag between CO2 emission and temperature, which is simply wrong. It's just bad science.

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

Sounds to me like the APS might be admitting that what was "incontrovertible" is, in fact, controvertible.
The Respected Doofinator

And yet if you go to the front page:

http://www.aps.org/

"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.'"

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
I did not certify or validate the content of the article.

That much is clear, but I'll give you credit for admitting this much. It is not the intention of DailyTech (among many denialist outlets) to honestly inform anyone. DailyTech thrives off assuming most readers won't take the time to do a very basic validation their claims. If you can't do such a validation, perhaps you should avoid such media outlets going forward.

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Nonsense.
You need to distinguish between the messenger and the author.
Any dimwit with the merest of intellects would understand, that I posted the article for the consideration of the interested public.
I did not certify or validate the content of the article. I have posted completely wacky items by authentic barking moonbats that were wholly goofy. The reader ultimately makes his own judgements about truth and accuracy.
That being said, what are the "takeways" from the subject article?
1. The author of the article appears to have stretched editorial privelege beyond the bounds or reason and accuracy by claiming that the APS "has reversed its stance on climate change". A careful reading of the article does not offer convincing support of that claim.
"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."
2. There apparently IS genuine contention within the APS community over the organization's assertion of "incontrovertible" evidence of human caused climate change. So much for the claim of "scientific consenses".
I predict that we can look forward to MORE, not LESS, evidence of disintegrating "scientific consensus" over human caused global warming within scientific organizations.
The Respected Doofinator

Point #1 was good but point #2 makes the same terrible assumption exposed in point #1. We're talking about some comments by one of APS's 50,000 members - one who doesn't hold a PhD, works for a medical company, and has not written peer-reviewed studies on the subject. That's it. And note the guy who this member found to argue against the consensus view was Lord Monckton, a nutty journalist.

Positions broadly represent the overwhelming majority of a group's members. The fact that the APS statement includes strong support for greenhouse gas reductions is very revealing about where the science is at. If there are more than a handful who disagree (and I'm sure there's a few more APS members, given the 50K membership and that many hold little to no expertise on climatology), the position is broadened and watered-down. I'll give you a concrete example. The American Association of State Climatologists, along with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, are the only scientific organizations that have nom-commital statements (up until recently, AAPG rejected the consensus view). AAPG consists of a lot of oil company workers, and understandably has folks with certain conflicts of interest and ideology. The American Association of State Climatologists is a relatively small group (47 members), the strong majority of which support the consensus view. They do, however, have a few like Spencer, Legates, and George Taylor that disagree with the rest. It only takes this many to severely water down a group statement. Note that AASC is more of a political organization than the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>

I think the problem stems from the fact that those who actually understand the science behind global warming ....

Ummm. Would one of those who actually understand the science be ... YOU?

I'm sure that you're not being presumptuous or condescending. I am confident that you have an actual diploma, and maybe even TWO actual diplomas.

I would just prefer that SOMEONE ELSE tell us that YOU actually understand the science, rather than your telling us directly, on behalf of YOURSELF, what you actually understand. You're not the most reliable and dispassionate judge of what you actually know.

By the way, would you acknowledge that the following individuals might ALSO understand the science?

"The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so"
by Lawrence Solomon (Author)

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--

Dr. Sami Solanki--

Prof. Freeman Dyson--

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--

Et cetera.

The Respected Doofinator

AstroMike is right. Too many people get their info about global warming from little online media outlets and blogs that just feed out the same churned up crap to each other then these readers presume they actually have a clue about the science.

Lets remember what the leading article said:
"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."

A big fat lie.

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
And note the guy who this member found to argue against the consensus view was Lord Monckton, a nutty journalist.

Yes. Of, course. A nutty journalist.

Al Gore, by the way, was a journalist.

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
If there are more than a handful who disagree (and I'm sure there's a few more APS members, given the 50K membership and that many hold little to no expertise on climatology), the position is broadened and watered-down.

Ah! The old "consensus" argument. Didn't your mother ever tell you that just because other people jump in the lake, it doesn't mean YOU have to jump in the lake?

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus …"

-- Michael Crichton

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Note that AASC is more of a political organization than the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

They're ALL political organizations. They don't DO science. They don't run research institutes or laboratories. They're TRADE UNIONS for tradesmen who happen to be physicists, chemists, climatologists, geophysicists, etc. etc. The reason they exist is to promote the importance and prestige of their trade, recruit members, and lobby for gubbermint money.

The Respected Doofinator

Consensus isn't used IN science, Crichton is attacking a strawman. Consensus is used outside science by us laypeople as an indication that experts, who best understand the intricacies of the issue, find the theory has compelling evidence.

A layperson can therefore think that if they did study the subject and became an expert themselves they would probably also find the evidence compelling.

Consensus wouldn't happen if the evidence wasn't compelling to experts, ie if the theory was obviously flawed.

The consensus concerning manmade global warming isn't just indicated by official statements of support from the vast bulk of scientific bodies worldwide, but also reflected in the detaild physics of climate textbooks, climatology courses in colleges and universities and by published papers and interviews with prominent scientists.

To us laypeople the consensus in all these areas is a great big sign that manmade global warming is taken very seriously by the experts in the field.

Certain special interest groups (and michael crichton) are trying to downplay the importance of this fact.