American Physical Society sees the Light: Will it be the first Major Scientific Institution to Reject the Global Warming 'Consensus?'

James DelingpoleBy James Delingpole –

The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on “climate change” by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA).

They are:

Professor Richard Lindzen, formerly Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a highly regarded physicist who once described climate change alarmism on The Larry King Show as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who has written: “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.”

Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a former Warmist (and still a self-described “luke warmer”) who has infuriated many of her more extremist colleagues by defending skeptics and by testifying to the US House Subcommittee on the Environment that the uncertainties in forecasting climate science are much greater than the alarmists will admit.

Read the rest at Breitbart.com

  • neilio

    It was just a matter of time. Scientists should be worried about credibility, I think this illustrates that they are.

  • Fietser

    I’m confused by this article. Is Richard Lindzen a meteorologost or a physicist? You can’t be both in my opinion.

    • neilio

      I am confused by your confusion! Maybe if you were to do a little digging yourself you would find that the study of the climate, i.e., “climatology” has been conducted by many scientists of many various fields of study, i.e., geology, meteorology, physics, chemistry, statistics, mathematics, etc., etc. The chairman of the IPCC is a railroad engineer for Pete’s sake!

      • Fietser

        So he didn’t study meteorology. That’s just what I wanted to know.

        • neilio

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
          Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983,[1] until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

          • Fietser

            But he can’t really predict the weather now can he?

          • Ok, we get that you’re not a fan of Dr. Lindzen. It is utterly irrelevant if he can, or can not “predict” the weather. We are talking about The American Physical Society, which is a society of physicists, not meteorologists. Besides it is apparent that no one can predict the weather with any degree of accuracy for any longer than a few weeks at a time. And that includes everyone on the planet.

    • Eleanor

      Please take my graduate-level meteorology classes and tell me physics isn’t involved.

      • Tom

        If any PHD scientist calls himself a scientist, but somehow dodged physics, which I don’t think is possible, then he/she is not very credible for this type of science. Physics is the foundation for every other Science.

      • Dave

        Smart and cute!.

    • Tom

      It’s called a real scientist “Multi-disciplined’ and not one the jokers who make a lifetime of money by publishing articles, skewing data, selling out to this phony push for power and money through Carbon Credits, and restricting lifestyles.

  • james

    Till recent years, there were no doctoral “climatology” degree programs. The fellow who is Director of the Southeast Regional Climate Center and trains climatologists has a PhD in, no kidding, Geography.

    Dr. Lindzen has PhD in Applied mathematics, but his study was focused on climate issues (his thesis “Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics, concerned the interactions of ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics in the middle atmosphere” (from Wikipedia). He has a BA in physics. So he is a mathematician and a physicist, as well as having credentials equal to folks who call themselves climatologists.

    Umm, you are aware that folks can have a degree in more than one field, right? And, I assume you are aware that most of the folks who run climatology programs do not have a degree in climatology, since such a degree did not exist a couple decades ago?

    • The fact that a degree in “climatology” even now exists is alarming, but you are spot-on. Students and practitioners of the “hard sciences” tend to be more skeptical of global warming hysteria. PhDs in political science and “the arts” (as well as politicians who smell a wedge to boost their own causes with) are rabid about it, though, right?

      • Eleanor

        “Students and practitioners of the ‘hard sciences’ tend to be more skeptical of global warming hysteria” – where is your reference for this?

        • I’ll be a reference, I am an electrical engineer with experience in thermodynamics and I can tell you the “greenhouse gas” theory is 100% nonsense.

          • Ed

            Oh good testimony from someone who claim to be an expert.(of a different field) Not good enough.

    • Ed

      But his PHD is in mathematics, not physics. So he’ not a “physicist”. I suppose you could get a B.A. in psychology and announce that you are a psychologist.

      • So, are you qualified to have an opinion? James Hansen, and Micheal Mann are PHD’s and they are full of s**t. They have lied, and manipulated data to “prove” their politically motivated position. Credentialed scientists are not above human failings. What do you call a doctor that got “D’s” in every class? You call them Doctor. Don’t put all of your faith in someone’s opinion just because they have a diploma. Do your own research for yourself.
        Obama has the affordable care act, is he a doctor, or an expert on health care, or insurance? No, he is not, but I will go out on a limb here, I bet you support that act. Right? How do I know that? Because you are a Liberal, and that means you are a hypocrite.
        Oh, and turn on your spellchecker.

  • Fietser

    What puzzles me further is how a body like that can make a u-turn in just a couple of years. Such u-turns imply you can’t really trust an institute like that. This is what they said a couple a years a go.

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

    • I don’t find it puzzling at all. It is just a signal that the APS is finally coming back down to reality after falling for this scam. I think it indicates something I have always believed, that truth and reality will trump lies and deceit… eventually.
      So, do you think they should have just clung to the fallacy of AGW theory, just to be consistent? I think it is commendable. It is not easy to admit that you were wrong. I think it is a very positive development in the evolution of scientific endeavor.

      • Fietser

        There’s not even a hint in the article why this u-turn was made. Science doesn’t change just like that. Good science then is good science now.

        • neilio

          Well, why do you suppose, then, that they are making this U-turn?
          Oh, I know it’s Big Oil that paid them off! Right? Or did they all have a secret meeting with George Bush, and the Koch brothers, who used a secretly developed mind altering confusion beam, that they’ve been secretly testing on unsuspecting Netherlands residents, and APS scientists?
          Or maybe Al Gore had a (man-bear) pig roast and didn’t invite them to the party?
          Oh I know, Richard Lindzen is really a Ninja! And he killed everyone in the APS and substituted them all with life-like androids! That’s got to be it!

  • Fietser

    Then to Judith Curry. She’s good in making u-turns as well. In 2007 she wrote this:

    “But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html

    Nothing really spectacular happened climate wise to do that, unless . . .

    • neilio

      See that is how science is supposed to work. Once a hypothesis is proven to be flawed it is incumbent upon scientists to make a “U-turn”. That’s what you do when you go down a dead-end street, you make a U-turn!

      • Fietser

        True, if data suggests otherwise, you should always change your hypothesis. But you should always provide a reason for doing that. Not doing so is not very scientifically.

        • Not very scientifically? I think you mean “scientific”. I hope.
          So, ultimately I would like to know exactly what your point is. If you have one.

  • Dave

    Attention All Liberals… Global Warming is man made and the only way to solve it is to reduce the number of humans on mother earth so please walk to the nearest high rise building or bridge and go to the very top without using an elevator as that creates heat and then JUMP. This is the only way to stop global warming and you must do your part to save mother earth…

    • Hey, you are saying something here that I just can’t condone. It flies in the face of propriety and common sense……You didn’t capitalize Mother Earth! Shame on you! J.U.M.P Just Use Mother’s Pull!

  • the biggest mistake(not the only)the global warmist scientists have made is; that in their calculations and computor models, is that they did not know that water vapour and mist has both a negative constant (value) and a positive constant. they used only the negative which made their calculatins come out to global warming. when to use the positive value and when to use the negative value is the question. Had they donre this they would have came to the conclusion that we r coming to at least 14 more years of cooling and then a thirty year slow rise to the temperatures of 1998 and 1938. it works out to sixty year cycles.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Gee Fred you are some kind of genius. May I subscribe to your newsletter or will you be too busy beating down all the lucrative job offers this insight will undoubtedly create?

    • Fietser

      They do know Fred.

      • So, what you’re saying is that they knew about the negative constant, and the positive constant, and chose to ignore the positive constant. And that is somehow better that they omitted relevant data, than just being ignorant of relevant data? Ohhhkaaaay?

  • Found a great blog post on the 97% consensus.

    http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html

    “One problem in arguments about climate (and many other things) is that most of the information is obtained at second, third, or fourth hand, with the result that what you believe depends largely on what sources of information you trust. One result is that people on either side of the argument can honestly believe that the evidence strongly supports their view. They trust different sources; different sources report different evidence. It is thus particularly interesting when on some point, even a fairly minor one, you can actually check a claim for yourself. I believe I have found an example of such a claim.”

  • Vic Pfitzner

    I have been skeptical of global warming since it was first suggested and after studying the physics of earths radiation I have been actively promoting the validity of skepticism.
    Water vapor and CO2 block some frequencies almost completely and the greenhouse gases are transparent to the remainder. Adding more CO2 will have little effect.
    I ask these warmaholics to show that what I say is incorrect.
    Vic Pfitzner

    • Thank you Vic. I have been talking about diminishing returns and CO2 saturation for years. I hope you comment more.

  • Dan

    [beating dead horse] Because it’s not about science. It’s about politics!

  • Dan

    BTW: Another one coming.

  • MattiK

    Money=budget rules these institutions. They will change their official position, when they are allowed to by their financiers.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Money rules everything (duh). Including the fossil fuel industry that is in the process of controlling the entire planet and its politics, to remain the most powerful industry in the world for as long as they can. Remember Big Tobacco? Same thing only on a much larger scale dollar and power-wise. In fact, you wouldn’t be wrong in saying that the American military industrial complex is teamed up with Big Oil in an evil symbiotic relationship that can only end in disaster for the US, and perhaps even the planet.

    • You and the MIC again. I think you have some kind of phobia about the MIC. I really don’t think it’s what you think it is. Are they are powerful, and secretive? Well, sure. But they are are companies that design, test, and build weapons, weapons systems, aircraft, ground vehicles, sea vessels, computers, communications equipment, satellites, and companies that supply and distribute munitions, uniforms, perform services, etc., etc.
      They’re not trying to take over the world like Pinky and the Brain.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Not trying to take over the world? Why do they (we) have military bases and installations all over the planet and trying to build more, everywhere you can name? We have taken over the world militarily speaking- done deal. Why? Business, that’s why. It’s not conspiracy theory either, it is basic common knowledge for thinking people. But you can only think about AGW it seems, almost like you have kind of phobia about it.

    • We could probably actually agree on one aspect, I don’t think we should be having all of these bases all over the world either. But we’re not there for the reasons that you think. Most of the places that we still maintain bases are places that we had to fight during WWII, and we maintain forces in those regions to avoid a repeat.
      I’m actually with you on bringing all of those forces home, but our reasons differ. I don’t think it’s our job to provide security and defense for other countries, which is primarily why they are there now. It’s actually one of the reasons why some European countries, ones that you have sang the praises of their forms of governing, have been able to enjoy their welfare states. Their not providing their own defense, we are! Bring them all home I say.

  • Ed

    I jut checked the American Physical Society’s website, and they apparently think climate change is happening, an that it is influenced by human beings.

  • Learned Pig

    Punish the guilty.

    • Hey you are welcome to post your opinion but it would be nice if you were a little more specific about what you are talking about. Who are the guilty, and what sort of punishment are you talking about?

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.