This is a big deal in the Climate Change Community....

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

[my.telegraph.co.uk]


Hey, maybe we can have a Global Warming Forum....

The term "physical scientist" is being bandied now as a corollary and sympathetic disciplinary term to actual climate science titles, such as "climatologist." A physicist may know something about climatology, but it is not his discipline and he is not an expert. His word on the subject of climate change is thus not necessarily credible, and must be reckoned against the word of his colleagues who, by education, training, and profession, are actually within the discipline of climate research.

It is curious to register Mr. Lewis's complaints about moneyed interests corrupting the Society and tying this to climate change theory, as, in general, climate change research is shown to be influenced(like Art Robinson's up in Oregon)by funding from dirty energy companies(coal, petroleum, natural gas, and Lewis's favorite, nuclear). That Lewis cannot name a singel corrupting entity in his letter of resignation is odd. His invoking of the Constitution, as though this applies to professional society protocols(!) is ludicrous. His misunderstanding of the conclusion of the investigation into what he refers to as "ClimateGate" shows a lack of intellectual candor.

Will be interesting to see where Lewis ends up. I'm guessing an oil company.


Don't think we need a board about this, but, whatever . . .

.. the "APS Constitution". I can see why Hal Lewis is disappointed with the APS, the American Physical Society has its own constitution which Hal Lewis and fellow members abided by in submitting a petition to form a Topical Group to discuss Climate Change. Those in authority responded by informally proposing (in compromise) a group to discuss simply the physics of "Climate".

The APS issued a statement in 2007, what Lewis describes as sounding like it was arrived at "over lunch" --

"National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."

[www.aps.org]

The link includes an APS defense of the policy this year. It doesn't look like the APS will be backing off its national policy advise any time soon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2010 02:54PM by loeve.

It looks like Hal Lewis joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"In late 2010, Lewis joined the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).[13] GWPF published Lewis's APS resignation letter in October 2010." [en.wikipedia.org]

..so he's interested in policy and has found this foundation in Great Britian.

If you look up the Global Warming Policy Foundation, you see that, though they are registered as an educational charity(I am all for studying the impact, scientific and monetary, of climate change, btw)they are an attempt by industry to address what is perceived to be an imprudent ECONOMIC response to anthropogenic climate change. They were founded by Nigel Lawson, former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer(and non-scientist). By their name, you'd guess they're a disinterested and official organization, and would never suppose that mostly mining scientists and non-scientists comprise their board. Their director, a social anthropologist, insists that their funding, though secret and undisclosed, absolutely does not come from energy companies or their subsidiaries.

I do so love that Orwellian doublespeak. [sigh]

Re: the Global Warming Policy Foundation and their board actually there's not a mining scientist in the lot that I can see according to their "Who We Are" tab --

Director: Dr. Benny Peiser:

Benny Peiser is the founder and editor (since 1997) of CCNet, the world's leading climate policy network. Benny is a social scientist and a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution. A 10km-wide asteroid, Minor Planet (7107) Peiser, was named in his honour by the International Astronomical Union.


Board of Trustees:

Lord Lawson (Chairman)
Nigel Lawson (Conservative), Secretary of State for Energy 1981-83, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983-89, author of An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, 2008.

Lord Barnett
Joel Barnett (Labour), Chief Secretary to the Treasury 1974-79, Vice-Chairman of the BBC 1986-93, gave his name to the Barnett Formula.

Lord Donoughue
Bernard Donoughue (Labour), Senior Policy Adviser to the Prime Minister (first Harold Wilson, then James Callaghan) 1974-79.

Lord Fellowes
Robert Fellowes (Crossbench), Assistant Private Secretary to the Queen 1977-86, Deputy Private Secretary to the Queen 1986-90, Private Secretary to the Queen 1990-99.

Rt Rev Peter Forster
Bishop of Chester since 1996.

Sir Martin Jacomb
Deputy Chairman of Barclays Bank 1985-93, Director of the Bank of England 1986-95, Chancellor of the University of Buckingham since 1996.

Henri Lepage
French economist and author, joint founder, Institut Euro 1992 (Paris), Chairman of the Institut Turgot (Paris) since 2008.

Baroness Nicholson
Emma Nicholson (Liberal Democrat), MP for Devon West and Torridge 1987-97 (first Con, then Lib Dem), Lib Dem MEP for S E England since 1999.

Lord Turnbull
Andrew Turnbull (Crossbench), Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretaryand Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05.


Academic Advisory Council:

Professor David Henderson (Chairman)
David Henderson was formerly Head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris. He is currently a Fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London.

Adrian Berry (Viscount Camrose)
From 1977 until 1996 Adrian Berry was science correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. On stepping down from that position after almost 20 years he was appointed the paper's consulting editor (science).

Sir Samuel Brittan
Samuel Brittan is one of Britain's most eminent economic authors and journalists. Since 1966 he has been an economic commentator for the Financial Times where he also served as Assistant Editor.

Sir Ian Byatt
Ian Byatt is a former Director General of the Office of Water Services for England and Wales, before which he was Deputy Chief Economic Adviser in HM Treasury. He is currently Chairman of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland.

Professor Robert Carter
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland)and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, ma-rine geologist and environmental scientist. He is the author of 'Climate: the Counter Consensus' which was published in 2010.

Professor Vincent Courtillot
Vincent Courtillot is professor of geophysics at the University of Paris Diderot and Director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris. He is past president of the European Union of Geosciences and currently chairs the scientific council of the City of Paris.

Professor Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson FRS, a world-renowned theoretical physicist, is Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton where he held a chair for many years. He is the author of numerous widely read science books.

Christian Gerondeau
Christian Gerondeau is a leading transport policy expert and the author of the Paris Area Railway Master Plan. He later became President of the French Federation of Motor Clubs and the French Institute for Public Policy and is currently President of Mobility and the Environment.

Dr Indur Goklany
Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author and is co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.

Professor William Happer
William Happer is a physicist who has specialised in the study of optics and spectros-copy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

[www.thegwpf.org]

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A physicist may know something
> about climatology, but it is not his discipline
> and he is not an expert. His word on the subject
> of climate change is thus not necessarily
> credible,

Oh my... *lol*

loeve,

I used the Wiki pages of the individual board and academic advisory members. Maybe there's a descrepancy between what the site says, and what another source says, or maybe I wasn't paying enough attention to the professional position within the board of the persons I looked up--sorry.

My argument is that the Global Warming Policy Foundation may not be legitimate as anything other than an economic policy think tank, as there are few scientists from the disciplines relating to climate research on their board. Even though they describe themselves as an economic "think tank," because their approach is to discredit climatological research, it stands to reason that the validity of their policy directives depends on their having climatologists among their members. Again, the number of economists within their membership looks about right, considering the Foundation's expressed purpose, but IMO, it looks bad that there are so few climatologists and geophysicists among the members. There should be more like Indur Goklany.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2010 02:18PM by Tamukha.

re Professor Robert Carter, on their academic advisory council --

"Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181." [en.wikipedia.org]


Indur Goklany trained as an electrical engineer and working in public service might be welcomed. He's into an appropriate response to the problem at hand. [en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2010 06:46PM by loeve.

loeve,

Indur Goklany isn't a climatologist, but his official presence as a rep for the IPCC suggests that he has greater expertise with the actual climate science and acquaintance with those currently working on it than someone on the outside of the committee. For this reason alone he is a good addition to an economics based response panel.

What I don't like, personally, is this premise, which we see in certain "rebuttal" groups(the GWPF is moderate in the spectrum), that what the IPCC has concluded is not valid because it would be unfeasibly costly to do anything about climate change. This is fallacious logic. To support such an argument necessitates the controversion of the IPCC's findings that anthropogenic climate change is a fact, and not mere hypothesis. This allows for presuming that conditions cannot or need not be altered by humans[at great cost to industry and nation states]because conditions have not arisen because of humans. This is both devious and irrational, a blasé washing of hands, so to speak. IMO, the strategy needs to be predicated upon an acceptance of the IPCC's findings, and must be both economic and humanitarian to make the most sense and have the most impact.

I don't think the op would agree, and you mightn't either

If never heard that line of reasoning.

What I find devious is the American Physical Society publishing their "National Policy...07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)" without a proper review of the science as evidenced by the controversy caused within its ranks, and by going outside their field in conclusions drawn --

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2010 08:42PM by loeve.

The American Physical Society can be evasive as well..

"There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so."

..to have their questions answered members need to gather 200 signatures from other members and file a petition.

"Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support."

..a minority of APS members benefit financially.

"...However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain."

..there's hope for reevaluation of the science, but their statement stands.

[www.aps.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2010 09:38PM by loeve.

Tamukha Wrote:
-----------------------------

> That Lewis CANNOT name a single corrupting entity in his letter of resignation is odd.

You mean, Lewis DID NOT name a corrupting entity. We don't know if he Can or Can't. He may do so in further interviews or writings. I think a Letter of Resignation would not be the venue to go into detail on the specifics of the fraud, because then it would become too lengthy.

KidRaw,

I dunno--you may be right that it may not be appropriate to disclose this info in a resignation letter, but the letter seems written in high dudgeon, insinuating this and that all over the place, which would allow for pointing obliquely in a specific funding direction. I was actually kind of disappointed. If you're gonna play "J'accuse!" go all the way, mister

He does. Hal Lewis' resignation letter was addressed to APS President Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University. Princeton scientists are currently working on global warming research funded by grants of at least 20 million.

[www.princeton.edu]

Late in the letter Lewis does note the possible connection to Princeton funding, though he states he's wary of assigning motive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2010 05:05PM by loeve.

I thought the new term was 'Climate change', as the weather patterns can be unstable, sometimes producing wetter and colder conditions than usual in some part of the world, and alternating between usual conditions, and then warmer drier conditions.

Its difficult for some to consider 20 feet of snow as being 'global warming', even thought it could be very unsual in a place that only gets a few inches of snow a year.

Yes, they changed it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" - to make the doctrine more believable and acceptable - but the skeptics are on a roll.

Conflict over global warming policy within the American Physical Society has been reported on for some time. Here's an excerpt from a CBS news report December of 09 --

"Socolow's research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government. In an interview published by Princeton's public relations office, Socolow called CO2 a "climate problem" that governments need to address.

"It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming," says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest."

[www.cbsnews.com]

Hal Lewis was deeply involved with the review process at that time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2010 09:26PM by loeve.

loeve,

Ooooohhhh, those nefarious anti-science corporatists at Princeton, ooooohhhhh!

[The above is gentle sarcasm, as I don't think Lewis is seriously denouncing Princeton as being an undue influence, specifically, Robert Socolow's funding, as it comes from BP(clearly public relations spin from the oil company) and funds research that isn't in the long-term interests of any oil company. That is the opposite of conflict of interest.]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2010 10:51PM by Tamukha.

APS President Curtis Callan chairs the physics department at Princeton, a university where 10's of millions of $ have been received for Global Warming research benefiting Princeton scientists.

From CBS news 12-9-09 --

Princeton University's William Happer:

"The APS has not responded to our petition. We submitted the petition several weeks ago... Prof. Callan, the president elect of the APS, who works in the same building in Princeton University as Professor Austin and I, has been unable to find time to discuss the petition with us.

"We have independently contacted as many members of the APS as we can to ask for their support of the petition. We are getting about as many supportive as negative responses, so I would judge that about half the membership of the APS agrees with us. Those who oppose us usually have little or nothing to say about the science and plenty of things to say about what evil people we are. Those who agree with us are troubled by the lack of scientific support for the current APS statement and the highly political nature of it."

[www.cbsnews.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2010 11:42PM by loeve.

loeve,

Ah, I see now--the link you post is almost a year old, and refers to a petition asking for an investigation into "ClimateGate, which was reasonably resolved months ago by people at the University of East Anglia, etc., who found no dispute with the data itself. The APS probably presumed this would be the case and so, as of last December, felt no need to alter their support of the IPCC statement. Btw, that link is from a "free marketer" blogger at the CBS website, which explains the diction used to report this(a bit editorializing for a real news report).

The thing that baffles me about the "dissenters" is that they are: outnumbered by signatories to the IPCC conclusions, they were over-responding to "ClimateGate" at the time(Lewis's referring to it as the worst scientific fraud he and his colleagues had ever seen rings of hysteria, especially in light of its resolution since), and still haven't tackled the pesky question of whether there is actual cogent data indicating anthropogenic climate change is a specious concept. So far--nothing. Indeed, Lewis's statements as of that link(December 2009) indicate that he disputes the findings of the IPCC in such a way as to make me wonder if he understands the findings; the data bungling in "ClimateGate" in no way alters the IPCC's ultimate conclusions, and while an investigation was certainly called for, and the petition helped make this occur, to attempt to use the data bungling of "ClimateGate" to discredit the entire monolithic enterprise of the IPCC is dishonest.

The vast majority of participants to the IPCC, a presumably disinterested undertaking, agree that the climate is changing and that humans are primarily responsible. If someone is going to dispute that, they should do so freely, and with full respect of their peers, but they'd better have all their ducks in a row and be backing their ideas up with real, verifiable, precise, peer-reviewed data. I shall continue to wait.

Tahukha,

The petition mentioned in last years' CBSnews article is the very same as that mentioned in the OP's opening link, a petition to review the APS (American Physical Society) "National Policy" statement of 2007.

Again, the *APS* issued this "National Policy" statement in 2007, what Lewis describes as sounding like it was arrived at "over lunch", and Haliday in the CBS article saying roughly half the APS members he's spoken to were "troubled by the lack of scientific support for the current APS statement and the highly political nature of it." Here's the APS statement again --

"National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."

Lewis, Haliday and other APS members have been trying to get this APS "National Policy" statement reviewed since before the ClimateGate story even broke.

Again this is American Physical Society stated "National Policy" (not US policy) and not IPCC. The IPCC does not even mention the APS policy at their web site but other Global Warming agencies have, possibly wrongly concluding the 47,000 APS member scientists endorse it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2010 11:51AM by loeve.

Is the timeline confusing? The ClimateGate story broke just after Nov. 17, 2009 --

"Timeline of the initial incident
The incident began when someone accessed a server used by the Climatic Research Unit and copied 160 MB of data[3] containing more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents.[17] The University of East Anglia stated that the server from which the data were taken was not one that could easily have been accessed and the data could not have been released inadvertently.[18] The breach was first discovered on 17 November 2009 after the server of the RealClimate website was hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded.[4]" [en.wikipedia.org]

The American Physical Society story preceeded ClimateGate and then came to respond to ClimateGate once it broke --

"When CBSNews.com asked on Monday whether it will rethink the statement calling for immediate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, the American Physical Society said it would not. APS spokeswoman Tawanda Johnson replied with a pre-ClimateGate announcement from November 10 (2009) reiterating support for the 2007 statement; neither APS president-elect Curtis Callan nor Johnson would answer other questions on the topic.

"...Some of the same scientists had asked the APS, pre-ClimateGate, to revise its climate policy statement. To the applause of like-minded bloggers who dubbed the petition "a silly distraction," the APS shot down that idea on November 10.

"In the aftermath of the embarrassing data leaks, however, Princeton's Happer says that about half of the APS members they've contacted now support the petition (which, after all, is only asking for an independent analysis of the science involved)." [www.cbsnews.com]

The petitioning of the American Physical Society to review their 2007 "National Policy" statement on Climate Change had been ongoing prior to ClimateGate.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2010 12:57PM by loeve.

"Btw, that link is from a "free marketer" blogger at the CBS website"

Actually my link was from a professional CBS news corporation journalist --

"Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET, which is part of CBS Corporation. Previously he was a senior correspondent for CBS News' Web site. He became the chief political correspondent for CNET News in 2002 and lives in the San Francisco area after spending over a decade in Washington, DC.

"An award-winning journalist, McCullagh writes and speaks frequently about technology, law, and politics. From 1998 to 2002, he was Wired's Washington bureau chief. Previously he was a reporter for Time Magazine, Time Digital Daily, and The Netly News, as well as a correspondent for HotWired. McCullagh previously wrote for the Taking Liberties section of CBS News' Web site, the successor to a weekly column he started in October 2008 titled Other People's Money.

"McCullagh's articles have appeared in scores of publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Magazine, Playboy magazine, George magazine, The New Republic, Communications of the ACM, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He has appeared on NPR's All Things Considered, ABC News' Good Morning America, NBC Evening News, Court TV, and CNN. He has taught as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He also has been a lecturer at American University in Washington, DC where he has taught a graduate journalism class (COMM-710)."

[www.mccullagh.org]

loeve,

I know Declan McCullagh is a journalist(I do not use "blogger" pejoratively--it's become an inexplicably loaded word) but Declan McCullagh is not writing the linked column as a CBS journalist reporting something, but as a blogger under the auspices of CBS's website. That is why the diction isn't per reportage, but per bloggerspeak.

"ClimateGate," as I have mentioned, does not alter the IPCC's findings ultimately, and has been reasonably resolved. I comprehend the timeline, and I am assuming the APS, being aware of all relevant data and basing their statement upon it, might have anticipated some irregularities(such as the data problem in ClimateGate) in as large a series of studies as the IPCC's were, but given everything, would have presumed these irregularities would be minor and immaterial to the general findings of the Panel. Which they are. The problem is that Lewis, et al, seem to be overemphasizing the importance of "ClimateGate" and are attempting to conflate it with the quality of the entire panoply of the Panel's research. It was correct for them and their colleagues to question whether the APS statement should be re-examined, in light of the data irregularities in East Anglia, but not to call for the rescinding of the statement; this struck me immediately as an excessive reaction. And it made my mind work; I remember Phil Cooney.

I guess my point is that the vast majority of scientists in pertinent fields agree, based on the data, that anthropogenic climate change is irrefutable fact. That there is still debate about specific aspects of research is healthy, as is debate concerning the economics of solutions. Lewis and certain colleagues appear to not be arguing concerning the economic solutions, but arguing that solutions resulting in economic impact aren't necessary because the IPCC's conclusions are false[Lewis is on record as denying anthropogenesis]. This is their main point of dissension from the APS--they decry the APS's call for taking immediate action to reduce CO2, etc., on the grounds that this decision was arrived at precipitously/fallaciously/deceitfully. Lewis casts aspersions but does not offer anything like concrete examples of ineptitude on the part of those drawing up the APS statement. Because his assessment of the data deviates so acutely from the foundational premise of the Panel's conclusion--that humans are causing this stuff--suggests that he a.) is the sole possessor of some recondite Truth, or b.) just doesn't like what almost every other professional climate evaluator is saying, for reasons unknown to us.

I once again ask(my prefrontal cortex aching):

If there is some vast, ulterior conspiracy to falsely conclude that natural climate patterns are aberrant and athropogenic, and to impel modifications of energy systems accordingly, who is behind it and what is the purpose?

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess my point is that the vast majority of
> scientists in pertinent fields agree, based on the
> data, that anthropogenic climate change is
> irrefutable fact.

Can you provide some links? I can find links to support both sides but none that really indicates what percentage of scientists in which fields believe what.

Rocketship, not exactly a formal poll but here are some excerpts from a Dec. 09 APS article --

"In the weeks leading up to the November 8 Council meeting, APS Councilors were inundated with emails from the membership about proposed changes to the current climate change statement. The responses were prompted by an article in the October edition of APS News and an independent mass email sent to a large portion of the membership soliciting input. It has been the largest response to an action of the Council in recent memory."

"This sparked a debate within the Council and the general membership about the statement. APS News ran an article in October describing the controversy, and told members to contact their Councilors if they wanted to weigh in on the issue.

"On the morning of Monday November second, APS Fellow Harold (Hal) Lewis sent an email to a large number of APS members. The message contained the original statement the Council adopted in 2007, a link to the petition with the new statement, and the email addresses of 30 Council members.

“We urge you to let the Councilors know if you believe the Statement is a fair representation of the scientific position through an e-mail to any or all of them,” the message read, “Since the addressees of this note represent only a sample of the membership, we would also urge you to pass this on.”

"Brasseur organized and categorized the first 180 messages he received to gauge the overall sentiments of the membership that responded. He found that 63 percent of respondents supported the existing statement with little or no change, while 37 percent said they opposed the current statement and wanted either no statement or the alternate statement adopted. Stewart and Austin said that while they had not crunched the numbers as precisely, they felt they had received a similar proportion of pro and anti statements."

[www.aps.org]

So pre-ClimateGate about 2/3 of the members of the American Physical Society approved of the statement, 1/3 opposed or wanting an alternate statement.

It's a good thing science is not (usually) a democratic process.

RocketShip,

[www.ipcc.ch]

As far as I can tell, most of the things I've read that deviate from the IPCC's findings question specific aspects of the data or its assessment, but do not dissent from the Panel's over all findings. There are the usual naysayers tied through academic funding or personal investment to the petroleum or coal industries, and their existence and opposition is to be expected. I always question the source, and at this point, it's pretty easy to tell who is backing whom based on language, or just a bit of digging to find a money trail. Let me just say, to my knowledge there is not a coalition of completely disinterested scientists that deviates from the Panel's findings and is comparable in size, scope, and expertise.

The IPCC has wonderful presentation skills, I'll give them that. Of course there are programs that help scientists fit their data to form that appearance. Notice the clever duel units left and right from ppm to ppb to give Methane CH4 a skyward trend. The scientists involved are keeping the fear factor up insuring research income for themselves well into the future. I suppose a graph of the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, can be found somewhere in the document but not on this page where it could help put all the greenhouse gases in perspective. Have they even begun measuring atmospheric water vapor systematically and globally?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2010 02:39PM by loeve.

We should be wary of citing Wikipedia as a credible source of information on Global Warming --

How Wikipedia’s Green Doctor Rewrote 5,428 Climate Articles

[network.nationalpost.com]

Climategate: the Corruption of Wikipedia

[blogs.telegraph.co.uk]

Here's a good article on Hal Lewis -

[blogs.telegraph.co.uk]

"Not seeing any empirical evidence that Mankind's Emissions of CO2 are having or will have any discernable Impact on the Climate."