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

The propaganda continues...
By Karmakaze on 7/19/2008 12:39:03 AM , Rating: 1
If DailyTech doesn't wish to be known as blatant lying propagandists, they should do a MUCH better job of correcting this nearly TOTALLY FALSE article that has clearly been written with a considerable bias.

For example it mentions the article by Christopher Monckton critical of the IPCC's report, but fails to even mention the article in the SAME ISSUE and part of the SAME DEBATE by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, supporting the IPCC's conclusions.

Why was this balancing article left out of DailyTech's article? Clearly the author HAD to know about it because it is mentioned in the same editorial as is linked in the article.

The only conclusion I can come to is that it was an intentional effort to mislead the reader as to what was actually occurring in that journal.

Add to that that the DailyTech article claims a reversal when in fact the editorial says nothing more than that they feel a debate should be opened and made the first steps in the two articles with opposing viewpoints.

Finally, by placing the "update" (not "correction") at the bottom of the article the author and or editor is attempting to ensure that the majority of readers never see it. All media people know that very few readers actually read an entire article from top to bottom, with the vast majority reading only the first paragraph or two.

This article from DailyTech is yet more of the unscientific propaganda that is being force-fed us by the elites that profit off of destroying the planet, and every one of the people commenting here who didn't take the 3 seconds it takes to click the link to the source editorial and actually read it have managed to make themselves look like idiots.

RE: The propaganda continues...
By Karmakaze on 7/19/2008 12:49:58 AM , Rating: 1
I know it is bad form to reply to my own post, but not being able to edit, I am forced to add some more information proving that this article is full of lies.

I had not yet read Monckton's article as linked in the DailyTech article at the time of my last post, but I just had to point out that Forum on Physics & Society society shows how responsible journalism should be done - it puts the correction in RED at the TOP of Monckton's article (I assume in attempt to correct the errors in this article):

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"

Case closed.

RE: The propaganda continues...
By Brian H on 7/19/2008 4:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
With this topic, for both IPCC and APS, "peer review" is code for a gatekeeping blockade of dissent. Nice work if you can get it.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 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