Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

AGW "consensus"challenged by scientists
Posted by: McQ on Friday, July 18, 2008

Finally, something I've been hoping to see, and something which helps restore my faith in real science:
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 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."
As noted, they're sponsoring a public debate, which I would love to hear and see. Wonder if Al "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk" Gore will get an invitation? Wonder if Al Gore would show up if he did?
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper 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."
The culprit, per Monckton? Old Sol:
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."
Let the debate finally begin!

UPDATE: And here is a rocket scientist from Australia who has also decided that CO2 and AGW are no longer the culprit.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Read the whole thing, but the second reason he presents pretty flatly says it all:
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
The ripple caused by a few heretics a couple of years agon is turning into a tsunami against the costly fraud of CO2 induced AGW.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Too Little, Too late.

The EPA, probably in anticipation of a AGW president regardless which one wins, is about to go nuts on what is regulated/taxed.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
The article you linked to has this update:
Update 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.
The only thing this changes in your post is the statement "representing nearly 50,000 physicists". The AGW dissenters are not 50,000 strong. The article does not make it clear how large the Physics and Society Forum is.

I just wanted to pre-empt others from saying that this update invalidates your argument. It doesn’t, it just slightly lowers the credibility of the AGW dissenters.
Written By: Rory Daulton
It doesn’t, it just slightly lowers the credibility of the AGW dissenters.
I’d suggest it merely lowers their numbers, not necessarily their credibility.
Written By: McQ
You are right, of course, McQ. I did not state it as clearly as I should have.
Written By: Rory Daulton
Mr. Evan’s piece in The Australian makes this excellent point.
"The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary."

If the left wants to shut down our economy, they should present and defend their case. Al Gore wants us to abandon fossil fuels in ten years! The only arguments I’ve seen pushed forward are computer models that do not match the empirical data.

If AGW supporters cannot or will not debate the issue, they should admit that their underlying premise is invalid.
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Wonder if Al Gore would show up if he did?
My guess.
Written By: meh
URL: http://
But Al Gore isn’t a physicist, he is merely a fool.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
The geocentric AGW view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle Al Gore, and the controversy engendered by Galileo’s Monckton’s presentation of heliocentrism climate sensitivity as proven fact resulted in the Catholic IPCC Church’s prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of IPCC Scripture.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
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.
Deniers denied ?
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
But Al Gore isn’t a physicist, he is merely a fool opportunist selling cures for a non-existant disease.
’fool’ implies some form of misguided sincere intention. I think he sees an issue to work to his personal benefit. Accuracy of it all means very little to him, otherwise he would be less of a hypocrit or at least be ashamed of his hypocritical lifestyle.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
What I want to know is, when we finally get a "consensus" that there is no global warming going on, can we institute a class action suit against these a-holes for trying to scare us to death?
Written By: kyleN
it’s my understanding from the editor’s comments that they decided to open some pages of their journal up for the debate.
we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue’s article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue’s article in favor of the IPCC conclusion
Monckton is a politician and business consultant and I’m not sure if he’s actually a member of APS. Additionally his article is not peer reviewed. The two physicists, Obispo and Hafemeister, presented their rebuttal here.
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Given the history and handwaving announcements of the eco-fools, once it generally accepted that C02, cow methane, automobiles, factories and all the rest have NOT contributed to global warming, then all the usual suspects will insist that the money already spent to combat global warming was what really saved the world and we should continue to waste, er um invest more money to continue to be good stewards of the earth.

We used to lock up our crazies to protect society, now we let them run free and pontificate about global warming.
Written By: tim stevens
URL: http://
Its hard to marshal forces against AGW.

I can see where Scientists don’t want to get in the middle of the debate if its now how they make their paycheck. Nice way to limit future career options and bring down trouble on your current situation if you tick off the Inquisition.

However if you make your paycheck by affirming AGW you’re a saint. If you make your paycheck by refuting AGW, you’re on the take.

It isn’t until that double standard is broken and its safe for scientists to oppose AGW without nuking their careers/funding, will it be strongly opposed.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks