This is the same group that traditional media outlets based their claims that the evidence of Global Warming was incontravertible.
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.”
An inconvenient truth for the left, its leaders, its parrots, its talkingheads, and of course…for the Heatmeiser
UPDATE BY MataHarley: I don’t like crashing other author’s posts, but in this case, Scott’s swamped with work and requested I put some adds in, as we were discussing off FA privately.
I saw the APS Newsletter call for debate yesterday, archived the sites, and sat back to watch. So first, bypassing media/journalists, who manage to screw just about everything up to the max, let’s go right to the APS Forum for the facts.
First, a comment from the Forum editor, Jeffrey Marque, that I was happy to see:
With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. 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.
I can’t tell you how refreshing it is for a change to hear even those that assume a pro-AGW stance to recognize that debate was appropriate because of the “immense implications”. As far as I’m concerned, it’s long overdue.
Marque says they “will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature”, and says “stick to the science”.
They started their July 2008 Newsletter with two articles: the skeptic piece by Christopher Monckton, and the pro AGW version by David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz.
This is only the beginning, as they are soliciting more articles pro and con, and perhaps some that address the previous. So this debate will not unfold immediately, but over time. Patience shall be required for one of the few places welcoming openly dissenting views. I shall be watching, as debate is healthy, and data and science on this are not absolute… and weather patterns are certainly not done exhibiting more change that are contrary to the accepted conclusions. Reconciling their predictions with reality is something I’m interested in reading. If you are as well, you should bookmark the APS Newsletter main page.
BTW, when I read these two opposing pieces yesterday, there was *no disclaimer in red* over Monckton’s piece at that time. That has been added in the past 15 hours or so…. perhaps because of media misinterpretation without reading the editor’s comments. Leave it to the press to not read…
I also notice they do not place any info or disclaimers over the pro-AGW view, including whether or not that piece went thru a “peer review”. As it’s not complete, and only makes a referral saying: We will not review the scientific literature, as that path is well trod”, we can assume this piece, like Monckton’s, merely qualifies with the demand they “stick to the science” and is not a peer reviewed paper as well.
Again, this disappoints me, as I believe an equal disclaimer should be put over both. But we should be thankful for the small favor of the slight opening of minds.