Skip to comments.American physicists warned not to debate global warming
Posted on 07/21/2008 9:54:26 AM PDT by BufordP
Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?
It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.
"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 the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion," he wrote (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm).
American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm) the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity. The believers are represented (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm) by two physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who state that:
"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality."
But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.
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.
Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think.
"The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie," writes (http://numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm) Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. "The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate."
Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes:
"If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?"
Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of "peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on "publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion.
(Whether it's science is not in question - whether it's "good science" or "bad science" is the question. An earlier presentation by Monckton examining questioning climate sensitivity received was examined (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/) by NASA's Gavin Schmidt on the believers' blog, RealClimate.org.)
But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the "state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's paper.
One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes:
"It is of no little significance that the IPCCs value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankinds effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted." [our emphasis]
Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified:
"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture."
In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer (so far so good), but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic system of the Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect (all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting"), but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.
The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass every year, notes Dyson (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494), the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists.
Could use your ping list!
APS can go pound sand.
Could use your ping list!
Its Galileo all over again, the flat earthers are in charge!
As a former MIT nerd, this will backfire.
Real (”hard”) scientists are often, by nature, contrarians to public opinion and this “warning” will draw their interest and further research.
So if I disobey will I lose my license to practice Physics?
So much for the “free, unfettered search for the truth, wherever that search may take us.”
I have a Pile it Higher and Deeper from the school of hard knocks , high mileage and sudden stops and agree with you 100% !
Tell me NO and I seek too know !
Stay safe !
I’d say the American Physical Society is protecting the AGWists grant income stream.
We should bring a tax-payers class-action suit against the reckless cynical opportunists responsible for hyping the anthropogenic GW hoax and causing so much mayhem here and around the world.
The main culprits have already been identified:
UK Watchdog finds [Channel 4 - The Great Global Warming Swindle] documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers.
One of the scientists who filed the original complaint (Carl Wunsch) is from MIT - an important point in this mix, in light of what one of his MIT collegues (Kerry Emanuel) had to say, which I am copying and pasting below this excerpted preface:
..Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on __a separate complaint about accuracy__, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulators broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers. ..
..The IPCC, King and other scientists including __Dr Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology__, complained to the regulator over the way they were represented. ...
..After the broadcast, Wunsch said the programme was masquerading as a science documentary when it should be regarded as a political polemic and was as close to pure propaganda as anything since world war two.
[[[ My interjection: Thats pretty funny in light of the fact that Gores movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was determined by a UK court to be one-sided extremist political propaganda and unfit to be shown to school children without disclaimers and equal time from the other side http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=8#8 ]]]
Wunsch claimed he had been duped into appearing and his comments had been misleadingly edited.
The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, __but that his views were accurately represented within it__. .. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/19/channel4.climatechange
Now here is Kerry Emanuel of MIT (who made these remarks months and months ago):
.. The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship. .. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.
Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.
On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...
Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for todays most critical environmental problem. ~ Kerry Emanuel - MIT http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Is Emanuels collegue, Carl Wunsch, one of those scientists on the left who was involved in deliberately exaggerating the science?
And from what I can determine, the Rev. Houghton may be another one of the scientists (mentioned by Kerry Emanuel above) who was involved in deliberately misleading / manipulating people. He even admits it:
The Reverend Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gores book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC said:
Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.
He then proceeds to do just that:
.. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.
~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html
James Hansen of NASA is another:
Hansen has long employed stagecraft http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk2YjVlYTYzZjZkNTRhZWU2NGNkNzcwYTMzMmFlNGQ= for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room.
Why was it so warm?
As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABCs Frontline: We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasnt working inside the room . . . it was really hot. June 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=
More first-hand admissions:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. ~ Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
[Therefore] I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberths actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4. ~ Sincerely, Chris Landsea
Expert leaves IPCC 17 January, 2005, Resignation letter http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
The climate modelers have been cheating for so long its almost become respectable (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)
Personally, I think that these men (along with others like Al Gore), bear a large responsibility for the suffering and nightmares they have inflicted on adults and children around the world.
Here is merely the latest fallout, among the many examples Ive read about, from such reckless behavior:
Climate Change Delusion Driving Boy to Kill Himself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html
Hopefully more mature, cooler heads will prevail so that this madness may end.
Leave Global Warming alone!
Question: In what Academic Department at MIT or what Science Department anywhere in the US would a scientist speak out if
a woman or minority was hired, given tenure or some award over a clearly more deserving white male.
Answer: Null Set University, The same one you can be critical of the theory of evolution and have it not negatively impact your career.
My bro-in-law and I are in a constant discussion about 'global warming'. He, like myself, want to see the data, before we make any judgements. BUT, and this is a big but, we both are dedicated to science telling the truth. If the sun, which is the major influence on temerature variations on all the planets(Mars is warming also), is not the primary driver of planetary warmth, we both are going to quit and work at Village Inn, because the world and a lot of ignorant scientists are drinking the kool-aid.
Right now, sunspot activity is non-existient as happens on a cycle with the sun. The effects of the outbursts of solar wind, magnetic particles, and radiation are at their lowest level in decades, not just years, but DECADES. That lack of force alone changes atmospheric conditions relative to temperatures.
Anyone check the 'hole' in the ozone layer? It's almost gone. Low sunspot activity, there is a connection.
Exactly. Obviously both “scientists” and politicians have billions of dollars riding on convincing the American public to go along with this scam.
They get more strident every day, which indicates how desperate they feel the situation is becoming.
APS sees the danger of loss of grants from the libs if they do not acknowledge globull warming!
Gravity is caused by alien life forms in other galaxies. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of gravity. This has not been done ....
Yes. In fact, by law, you will be required to introduce yourself as a PhD in Peace Studies, sociology, or French Literature. The point is maximal humiliation.
EMail the APS and have them warn their members not to read this thread.
No, you will be burned at the stake!