Physicists firm on climate change - November 12, 2009
The American Physical Society (APS) has overwhelmingly rejected a petition by a group of physicists asking the organization to reverse its position on climate change.
The petition was signed by 160 physicists including Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever. If you don't feel like reading the thing, it essentially says that there has been a lot of natural variation in climate change over the past centuries, and that natural variation can explain the recent rise in global temperatures. The statement also points out what it calls the "beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals."
The group has been bullish on the hopes of changing the APS's minds. They even wrote us a letter in July, noting that they had prompted an APS review of its climate change position. "We hope it will lead to meaningful change," they said in the letter.
But no such luck. The society review, lead by nuclear physicist Daniel Kleppner from MIT, recommended that no changes be made, and on 10 November, the council accepted their recommendation.
As interesting as the petition is, there's an equally fascinating analysis of the signers that's doing the rounds. John Mashey, a computer scientist and APS member, has done a thorough analysis of who was involved. It's not the easiest to read, but it starts getting interesting around section 4 or 5. Mashey breaks down the signers by age, political contributions and geographic area. He also does some network analysis to show who was involved with the petition at different stages.
He finds that the signers tend to be predominately older and big contributors to the Republican and Libertarian parties. More interestingly the supporters seem to be centered around the Northeast, particularly Princeton University's department. Again, not surprising considering that one of the main organizersis Will Happer, a well-respected Princeton physicist and long-time climate change sceptic who, in 1993, was pushed out of his position at the Department of Energy after rowing with then vice president Al Gore over the significance of the ozone hole (see our rival for a little background).
The petition wasn't a total flop, the APS says its Panel on Public Affairs should "examine the statement for possible improvements in clarity and tone." Happer called the decision a "big victory" for the petitioners.
Comments
Thanks for the mention!
One minor omission: there were also concentrations in New Mexico, and California (nuclear and especially SoCal aerospace), U of Rochester, NY, and a few other places near the organizers.
Posted by: John Mashey | November 13, 2009 03:38 PM
It is really time to stop this silliness. 160 Physicists are not wrong. The problem is corporate America, lead by false prophets such as Mr. Gore, stand to make billions off of carbon credits, and garner other favors in the name of “saving the planet…” Needless to say, the Socialists and Marxists in our society will love the tax revenues and control of every aspect of our lives too.
The American people are wising up. We are beginning to realize this whole thing is an unholy alliance between Revolutionary Marxists and Big Environment. We know that the end goal is to wreck our lives. The planet is not in danger. There is “Global Climate Change” and there has been for billions of years. Get over it. We see you…
The Blinders Are Coming Off the people and the public backlash against the Carbon Hedge Fund Scamp will be phenomenal…
Posted by: Don Cuillo | November 13, 2009 05:46 PM
It's interesting that as a scientist, if you wish to express an opinion that is contrary to the alarmist orthodoxy, that the alarmists consider it justification for researching your background. Another strong indicator that climate alarmism is much more about politics and religion than it is about science.
In any case, if these 160 scientists, as well as many more around the world, can consider the issue of AGW as an open issue, then it is not settled science.
What is even more alarming is the brownshirt tactics of the establishment alarmists. Obviously intimidation of the opposition is on the menu. Having Gore fire Happer is an indication that if you differ from AGW, you better keep your mouth shut. Dr. Roy Spencer experienced similar problems in expressing his opinions about AGW when he worked for the government.
Notice that what is not covered here is the scientific merit of the petition that these scientists brought to the APS. In these political times, scientific merit is obviously something that the APS no longer cares about.
Posted by: Tilo Reber | November 14, 2009 05:28 PM
Don Cuillo's comment - amazing - love it. Has to be comedy. I cite Poe's Law. http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/11/denialists-are-bit-mental.html
Posted by: Anarchist606 | November 14, 2009 07:36 PM
> It's interesting that as a scientist, if you wish to express an opinion that is contrary to the alarmist orthodoxy, that the alarmists consider it justification for researching your background.
Strange. A claim that, simultaneously, the petitioners deserve weight attached to their statement because of their background, and, the petitioners cannot be expected to bare any inquiry into their background. Which is primary: the judged validity of the statement or the moment-by-moment convenience of the petitioners?
Considering the science of the possible human causes of harmful climate change, either it is a nonesuch science, where the publishing practitioners cannot be trusted to draw conclusions from their own research, or we have an example of run-of-the-mill obscurantism, like the fellow "controversies" of evolution, HIV/AIDS, the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, tobacco carcinogenicity, vaccination for public health, and the Twin Towers falling because of airplanes piloted inthttp://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt.cgi?__mode=list_comments&blog_id=32
Commentso them and not because of controlled explosive demolition.
And we see the predicted distress accompanying inquiry of the political/economic/social dynamics of motivated obscurantism, here.
The anti-AGW crowd can distinguish themselves from run-of-the-mill obscurantism with energies directed toward *their* *own* published research under the norms of scientific scrutiny. Or not - petitions can be filed and semi-plausible skeptical harrumphing can be echoed and amplified. Their own choice.
Posted by: manuelg | November 16, 2009 06:36 PM
Anarachist606: it might not be parody - I found words like that when doing this study, even from physics PhDs. At least this one didn't mention Obama birth certificates.
All:
The APS Council simply settled it on well-established science, of which the Petition had almost none. The closest was a misleading cherry-pick about CO2 and plant growth. Anyone who signed this didn't seem know what gardeners or many 10-year-old farmkids know, i.e., Liebig's Law of the Minimum. [I.e., people add CO2 to sealed greenhouses where everything else is provided. No amount of CO2 will help grow corn in the Sahara, no matter how much the Western Fuels Association says so.]
In my paper, I gave the "Science" part of this a few paragraphs on page 9, probably more than it deserved, given it was akin to a demand by Wallace and Gromit fans for NASA to stop talking about moon rocks because they *know* it's cheese there.
Posted by: John Mashey | November 18, 2009 05:12 AM