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: Wrong again ...
By Hoser McMoose on 7/18/2008 9:09:00 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry Michael but I have to disagree with you on this one. This blog post is just flat out wrong. There is no 'sea of change' of policy here, just scientists discussing science. Something that has long since become irrelevant to BOTH sides of the climate change debate.

I applaud the fact that you did post an 'update' to correct the error, but really one should put more then a few minutes of research into things BEFORE making a post before just mindlessly repeating someone else's nonsense. I read most of your posts and agree with some of your points, but when you post things just because they happen to support your point of view, despite the fact that they are factually incorrect, I quickly lose respect.


RE: Wrong again ...
By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:06:01 AM , Rating: 2
The entire "science" consensus is an attempt to make invalid modeling and forecasting acceptable.

It is a PRIME ERROR to use "fit" to adjust a working model. The ONLY valid use for that technique, which is fundamental to what IPCC claims to have done, is to suggest possible relationships and hypotheses for inclusion in a coherent model. It is DEATH to use anything but explicit Popper-disprovable hypotheses and mathematical relationships in a predictive model. At most it becomes a disguised elaboration of the opinions of the "composer". At worst, an algebraic tautology.

The reason is that the process of "fitting" radically narrows the scope of the model to extant cases with their inherent limitations on significant digits of measurement. Attempts to extrapolate will spiral into more and more "by-hand" fittings until you are left with a Rube Goldberg contraption of weakly descriptive constraints with zero predictive power.

Which is the condition reached some time ago by the IPCC models. The egregious "sensitivity" plugs, and the reversed sign on the high-level albedo effect, are just two risible but deadly symptoms.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














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