backtop


Print 218 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Jul 28 at 2:54 PM


Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change
"Considerable presence" of skeptics


Updated 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 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."

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."

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."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: How many more nails?
By calvin0007 on 7/18/2008 6:47:58 AM , Rating: 0
It used to be the "official point of view" that slavery was okay, but now it's not. The trend is towards debunking the global warming myth.

These little things keep bugging me; why did the Vikings call Greenland, Greenland in the 10th century AD?
How did they find the mummified remains of a man who died 4,000 years ago at the BOTTOM of the ice in the Alps in 1991?
How can they find plant life under all that ice in the Antartic? Wasn't it always ice or do things change over time?


RE: How many more nails?
By mahax on 7/18/2008 12:39:45 PM , Rating: 3
Do'h, things change over a loooong time. You know, America broke off of Africa etc. And 4000 years is a bit longer than the industrialized era which during we presumably caused the GW. The whole point isn't the change, but the rate it's happening at.


RE: How many more nails?
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 8:57:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
These little things keep bugging me; why did the Vikings call Greenland, Greenland in the 10th century AD?

Possibly because the south of Greenland, where they landed, IS green?

Take a look at pictures of the place sometime. A little bit rocky, but otherwise it reminds me a LOT of Ireland (and certainly similar to Newfoundland). You don't have to go very far North in the country until it's covered in ice, but the Vikings landed on the Southernmost tip.

The name 'Greenland' is neither proof nor disproof of anything other than the name of an island.


RE: How many more nails?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/18/2008 9:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "The name 'Greenland' is neither proof nor disproof of anything other than the name of an island. "

There is no doubt that Greenland was substantially warming during the Viking colonization than it is today. I've posted the studies to demonstrate such many times before. The coming of the Little Ice Age cooled the continent by some 2-3C and spelled the end of the Viking settlements.


RE: How many more nails?
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 9:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, Greenland was warmer when the Vikings colonized the place vs. when they died off or left. The temperature data may be of some interest, the name 'Greenland' is not.

Temperature data is science, 'Greenland' is just the name of an island in the North Atlantic.


RE: How many more nails?
By darmbruster on 7/19/2008 11:07:28 AM , Rating: 5
the true story: They called green Iceland ICEland and the Icy Greenland GREENland to keep people from setting Iceland. It was a trick... or so they say...



RE: How many more nails?
By darmbruster on 7/19/2008 11:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
correction: settling


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki