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

By co2isgood on 7/18/2008 2:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
YeYo keeps posting the same link over and over! No ones saying the APS has instantly changed its position on AGW, only that it is finally being unbiasedly debated within the scientific community. This should be good news for all truth seekers!

By The Night Owl on 7/18/2008 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: No one is continuing to claim that the APS has changed its position on AGW.

By YEYO on 7/18/2008 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 1
co2isgood? is that your motto? What do you have to loose from a cleaner planet? Most people agree that fighting global warming is going to create thousands of new jobs, a new industry, and many more economic advantages to our country. The only ones to loose are the oil companies. If you don't work for Exxon there's no point for you to promote a dirtier planet.

Don't get me wrong. I wish man made global warming was a myth, but most leaders of the free world agree. Including the U.S., England, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, etc. Not even George W. Bush disagree with the science (even though his not willing to act to not affect his friends). But is not only this countries, is also the EPA, NASA, the UN and pretty much every collage graduated scientist that is not in Exxon's payroll.

So what's your point? Why are you so obsessed with this? I don't get what do you have to win of all this.

Oh, and by the way. I just didn't put the link in this forum. I also send it to Matt Drudge. He removed the link to this post this morning.

By kbehrens on 7/18/2008 8:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
What do you have to loose from a cleaner planet?
CO2 isn't a pollutant for one. It's plant fertilizer, and it comes out of everyone's mouths.

What do we have to lose from stopping CO2 emissions? Oh, just the entire benefits of the industrial revolution, and our entire modern lifestyle. Not that much, right?

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki