Global Warming – Myth of Consensus

Skepticism its just not for deniers anymore:

Considerable presence” of skeptics

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.”

From the Forum on Physics and Society:

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.  


Crime does not pay … as well as politics.
Alfred E. Newman


  1. Dave Scocca says:

    From the APS web page at

    (quote begins)

    APS Climate Change Statement

    APS Position Remains Unchanged

    The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

    “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

    An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

    (quote ends)

    That is to say, the “DailyTech” statement that:

    “The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance ”

    is inaccurate to the point of being a blatant lie. The organization has NOT reversed its stance; one sub-group of the organization has said they disagree with the stance but has produced no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support that disagreement.

  2. nyoatrader says:


    Agreed the statement that the APS has reversed it position is incorrect.

    However, at least some part of the organization or portion of its membership (one of 39 units at the least) does not believe that all of the science is settled.

    It is certainly true that “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.”

  3. nyoatrader says:

    The controversy rages:
    “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 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)?”

Leave a Reply