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."
Although the APS has pointed out 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", we are now starting to see the unravelling of the consensus (if indeed, it ever really existed).
On one of my recent posts, DAVID CAMERON'S FOREHEAD left the following comment...
You are fucking desperate. I love watching you get more & more so.
This is, actually, rather inaccurate. I haven't had time of late to publish or highlight everything that I would like to, but the catastrophic AGW myth is one of the areas in which I do see a ray of light; more and more people—more and more scientists—are publically questioning the orthodoxy and I find this very heartening—especially as more and more evidence about the dodginess of IPCC modelling, proxy temperature models and important omissions start to come to light (the two moves are, I would imagine, inextricably linked).
The slightly bizarre charges that have been levelled at myself and other sceptics have been pretty harsh. Many have accused me of clinging desperately to my religion of... well... right-wingery and not giving a shit if the planet burns. But that isn't the case: if I genuinely thought, looking at the evidence that I have, that the catastrophic AGW was occurring and that it was down to our CO2 emissions, I would have been clamouring for the feckless politicians to do something too (although my solutions would be rather different to those of the Green loons; my solutions would still be those emcompassed by the IPCC though, in the form of the SRES A1 models).
But, as it is, I do not believe that we are causing, or indeed heading towards, catastrophic warming. It is not my free-market beliefs that lead me to conclude that, but my examination of the evidence. And it is not only the evidence that the IPCC present, but also of the data that underpins the IPCC's conclusions. And much of that data is fatally flawed.
The only worry, of course, is that the glacial pace of politics will ensure that we are all considerably poorer before the tide turns. It took that lunatic, James Hansen, about 20 years to convince the politicians of his half-baked theories: it will take another twenty or thirty years to swing them back the other way—especially as we will be fighting against the politicos' pride, reluctance to admit their error and their desire to control their populations—by which time we could all be a bit fucked.
Fucked not by global warming, but by our pig-ignorant politicos.