Climate Alarmism Under Review at American Physical Society

What you have written above is not true. APS is not reviewing anything.

Here is the official statement of APS regarding climate change. It can be found on the APS website here.

"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."

I demand, if truth means anything to you, that given this evidence I've presented above which clearly contradicts your claim, that you admit your mistake in a response to your original post.

I accept your demand. Please read the following quote from the NAture article I cited:

"On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues."

Emphasis mine

milo

I stand corrected. I apologize.

If you read the Nature article you posted, which is actually a letter to the editor, it does claim that APS is reviewing it's climate change statement at the very end. I'm confident that they will reaffirm the statement or make no major changes. However, if they do make major changes, for instance removing the part about man's contributions, I will not shy away, you will find me here willing to discuss such a result.

What about you milo? What will you say if APS reaffirms their climate change statement, as they did a year ago in July 2008?

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange08.cfm

Thanks. I was certain that the letter's information was valid.

What will I say if they reaffirm?

I will say what my tagline quote says"People say between two opposed opinions the truth lies in the middle. Not at all! Between them lies the problem, "

I am pleased that APS is considering. That is how science works. I don't believe that there has been an open and honest appraisal; Ibelieve that there were agendas, and many related to securing funding rather than to rational assessments.

I call the review a much needed time out to clear the air, tone down the hysteria, and perhaps set some limits on what can be trumpeted by whom as "Settled Science."

The rush to a consensus has served no one well, and has created what i call "faith based polarization" as opposed to ongoing application of scientific method and process. Polemics are an important part of resolving "what lies in between."

My life experience is perhaps a bit different than yours:

My first job was at a blast furnace in Youngstown Ohio.

I testified at a public hearing about the need for realistic water quality standards, if we were going to keep employment in Youngstown. (circa 1974- 1975- it was the 1970's- thats a bout all i remember.)

They came back and imposed cold water fishery water quality standards on the Mahoning river. This was a river that had never froze over in my father's or grandfather's lifetime because of thermal loading. Cold water fishery standards on a hundred year old industrial sewer.

DId I want to see the river remain a sewer? no. Did I want to see all employment evaporate from the valley because of this all or nothing water compliance rule?

No.

Result:

My plant closed, almost all the plants closed.

Today, Detroit looks like a bustling manufacturing metropolis compared to "the steel valley"

Policy decisions have consequences. I think they deserve to be made on real science-, not a rushed consensus on faith based alarmist claims.

I am pleased to see the issue being reconsidered.

Consensus is not helpful in science.

I can assure you I was the most unpopular student in my ecology seminar in 1975, because I valued people dams over beaver dams... "Damn engineer."

milo

Durn! First we gave you guys Traficant. Now you want jobs too.

It's the old story of being between a rock and a hard spot. Clairton, just down the road, has a cancer rate 25 times the national average. That's from the coke works that provides good jobs for a lot of people. They're looking to add another battery right now. That means more jobs and more cancer. They've cleaned things up a lot, but I don't know if I would live in that valley.

So you're the one who gave us Traficant...

We had the jobs before we had Traficant. Now we they don't have jobs, Don't have traficant for entertainment, and the mahoning river still ain't no cold water fishery. Score Zero for 'our side.' (whatever that means.)

Policies have consequences. This dream of 'cold water fisheries' gutted a vibrant (if colorful) economy.

It is a difficult decision - watching the Chinese struggle with ignore it is illuminating.

I know about Clairton and I know about coke plants.

I donot necesarily agreewith your new battery = more jobs and more cancer; the emission rules are incredibly tight for new construction. And my guess is they won't be putting up any help wanted signs either...

I think the cancer cluster is more related to the old days of poor capture of byproducts and quench fallout rather than current level of emissions. And I will also add the autocatalytic and autocorrelative effect of smoking in the clairton population in those cancers.

I dare not impugn the role of Iron City Beer in the process. Why it cleanses the liver with its fine blend of aqueous and ethanolic ingredients.

milo

Alas, Iron City filled it's last keg the other day. They're off to Latrobe to the former home of Rolling Rock Beer (the next best thing to water for washing your socks). We've even lost Stoneys (which legend had that Shirley Jones personally blessed every batch).

You may be partly right about the cancers. I used to build analyzers for their coke gases and they did a good job of capturing just about everything useful. We still have lots of air action days up the hill in Libert Boro though, so it's not completely fixed.

I'm not sure about the jobs. Maybe if there's no jobs, they can't afford cigarettes. I saw a sign the other day that was bragging about $5.69 a pack!

You Wrote:"Why can't we have an objective scientific process to study this issue? A process free of the current intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades this issue. As my tagline quote from Goethe explains, it is the difference that is the problem to be studied."

You're post says APS is reviewing it's statement. No where in any of the sources you provide does it say they are reviewing their statement. I want you to own up to this. I want you to admit that you have essentially sensationalized your headline.

"A process free of the current intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades this issue."

...I keep that in mind, demanding nothing...

The myth of scientific intolerance is the real intolerance. It invalidates any scientific findings it doesn't like by yelling "bias" and supports whatever fringe result it can find by yelling "intolerance".

What is going on here is you all are believing what you want to believe, the facts be damned.

The facts are that every major scientific organization and association has a statement saying that climate change is real and caused by man, including APS. Just because they are reviewing something doesn't mean they intend to change it.

Dear TVP45, Thanks for your post.

We would expect reputable institutions and even individuals to review new facts to see if they call for any policy changes.

While most of the literature focuses on Carbon Dioxide, it has been stated that models have not properly predicted some of the rapidity seen in the melts in the Arctic.

My suspicion is that the freeing of Methane was not fully anticipated.

The slightly diminished radiation output of our Sun, was reported as providing only a temporary respite, and some say we ought to take advantage of all the luck we can get.

Back in the 70s when I had to listen to every word of UNCG ecology lectures, since it was my job to record the series, all these events were laid at the door of the increasing human population. According to the scholar Stephen D. Mumford in his book The Life and Death of NSSM 200, subtitled How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy, the CIA reported to Nixon that the greatest threat to the US was world wide overpopulation. Mr. Mumford also reported that Vatican influence has been historically documented as having undue influence over US Policies, not to mention Spain.

Personally I don't understand why some smart people say, "We don't have any influence over the climate!"

Jared Diamonds work Collapse presents sound evidence otherwise, especially if you substitute the word Environmental Change, for "Climate" Change.

In my lifetime I have seen patterns of rain, and the available pure water in areas I've spent much of my life, endure drought so severe there was for the first time in recorded history, not even dew on the grass, in the morning.

Possibly we all ought to paint our roofs white, not so much in hopes of controlling Carbon Dioxide, but to slow permafrost melts that are releasing vast amounts of Methane.

The mix of reasons that changes in the environment are occurring is complex, however I am pretty certain that human activity and overpopulation has great bearing, as rabbits find out, who have the same population per area patterns.

This is the J curve.

Population increases till all resources are exhausted at maximum levels in the finite space, and then falls to nil, or zero.

Not that I had to tell you that...

So why the off topic?

milo

Well, APS has finished it's review. Here's the results:

The American Physical Society (APS) has overwhelmingly rejected a petition by a group of physicists asking the organization to reverse its position on climate change.

Here again is that position for those of you who don't know it:

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.

So there you have it, the request was evaluated and rejected. No doubt you will say that APS is biased, or political, or whatever dumb thing you are brainwashed to believe, but I figured I'd bookend this by giving this update regardless of your inability to accept it (you being plural here, no one poster in particular).

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/physik_astronomie/aps_council_overwhelmingly_rejects_proposal_replace_143403.html

Thanks for the follow up Roger. That "irrefutable" seems a bit ironic after reading the coverage in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html Its interesting to learn that there is more than a smidgen of petty politics in the "oh so holy" global warming 'Scientific' community. We now have additiional insight into the "integrity" of a lot of people in the alarmist community. WHile I agree that anything taken out of context fails o give the whole pictue, the commens that we have seen shine a pretty bright light into the thinking and "open mindedness?" of the folks involved. The hacked emails are me conclusive and convincing evidence of strong efforts to manage the issue by scientists by suppressing scientific debate. According to Myron Ebell (GlobalWarming.org) "The so-called 'skeptical' view is now also the majority view." Appreciate your closing the loop on this one, Roger; alas, like Medusa, one head gets lopped off and a couple more appear. milo "my apologies for the single paragraph, CR4 on the macbook doesn't allow breaks between paragraphs."

It never ends with you guys, you don't understand research or science so you don't understand the emails and what they say.

Basically they are saying that it's frustrating not to be able to predict short term events, only long term ones. This is a problem with all statistics. Go ahead and flip a coin, I promise that if you flip it 10,000 times it will be close to 50-50 heads-tails if it is a fair coin, but I can't make that same prediction for 10 flips because there is too much variability.

The scientists emails are a reflection of a fear of your mob mentality. It's coming to the point that we're afraid to publish anything that can be misconstrued by the leaders of your brainwashed movement. Personally, I realize the truth that many other scientists don't, you are so easily manipulated by your screaming lunatic leaders that it doesn't matter what we tell you, so we shouldn't worry about it.

Also, as always, you only read what you wanted from that article, here is an excerpt:

"The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."

The very fact that we live in a world where all the ice is melting away at a faster and faster rate and you've somehow convinced yourself that it's not getting warming just shows how brainwashed and hysterical you people are. I just thank god everyday that the younger generation for the most part doesn't buy into your nonsense.

Also, when you wrote this months ago, it was with the implication that the APS reconsidering their climate statement somehow validated global warming skepticism, yet after they reject any revision overwhelmingly, now it's that the scientists aren't trustworthy. In psycology that's called "rationalization".

Roger, No need to wag finger and demonize "you guys". English is my native tongue, and I am quite capable of reading both implicit and explicit content unless its sarcastic humor- then all bets are off. As can most of our members here. Actually some of us have academic degrees, done research, actually worked for an EPA, and had to solve process problems in Industry. As far as publications, you probably have me there, as I have only presented a couple of peer reviewed papers to SME and The Ohio Academy of Science. I'll look forward to reading yours. My take on Science was suitable to merit co-authorship of the Ohio Academy of Science's paper "What Is Science." http://www.ohiosci.org/WhatisScienceOJS106(4)130-135.pdf And my 100 plus articles in Todays Machining World, Production Machining, and various other trade publications tell me that I don't have to raise my voice. My world view continues to deal successfully with the new "orthodoxies" that come around. I am really not sure why this subject always bring out the accusatory tone and the "I realize the truth that other scientists don't" statements of faith, statements of zeal?" from its proponents. When I brought this topic up originally, as you correctly pointed out, it was with the optimism that the APS would do a thorough validation of their statement. Now that the press has peeked under the curtain, I'm not so sure how the APS is feeling about the Integrity of their assurances. The press's peek seems to show that the Climate Wizards in the Emerald City are just ordinary shysters thrashing about for more funding, hand selecting data, trying to stifle dissent and debate, and not bothering to share important details to those of us "not behind the curtain." And you're telling us that they did this out of fear? Of us "mob obeying lunatic leaders" with no data! AMAZING. SCIENCE NEVER PROSPERS IN SECRECY. Science is advanced when professionals share data and models and assumptions and they can be tested. The only reason to fear "mob mentality" is if you are pulling something over on them. Like I said, thanks for the follow up, I had missed it. Best regards (I'd put a smiley face here, but CR4 formatting and smileys be do not seem to be available to us Safari users on Macbooks) milo "You know, the weatherman's five day forecast IS ALWAYS SO much better than his one day forecast"

You are part of an unruly, unfocused mob that disregards overwhelming scientific data and at this point the very world around you to hold on to your politically biased myths. You can try to paint yourself however you want, but at the end of the day you are basically carrying a pitchfork and a torch. You have a right to free speech, not my respect.

This isn't sarcasm, this is contempt. Contempt because these politically motivated attempts to discredit science weakens the human race.

I hope that clears up any confusion you have.

Roger