UPDATED: Scientists Re-Open Climate Change Debate Citing, “Considerable Presence of Skeptics”


This is the same group that traditional media outlets based their claims that the evidence of Global Warming was incontravertible.

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.”


An inconvenient truth for the left, its leaders, its parrots, its talkingheads, and of course…for the Heatmeiser

UPDATE BY MataHarley: I don’t like crashing other author’s posts, but in this case, Scott’s swamped with work and requested I put some adds in, as we were discussing off FA privately.

I saw the APS Newsletter call for debate yesterday, archived the sites, and sat back to watch. So first, bypassing media/journalists, who manage to screw just about everything up to the max, let’s go right to the APS Forum for the facts.

First, a comment from the Forum editor, Jeffrey Marque, that I was happy to see:

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. 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.

I can’t tell you how refreshing it is for a change to hear even those that assume a pro-AGW stance to recognize that debate was appropriate because of the “immense implications”. As far as I’m concerned, it’s long overdue.

Marque says they “will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature”, and says “stick to the science”.

They started their July 2008 Newsletter with two articles: the skeptic piece by Christopher Monckton, and the pro AGW version by David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz.

This is only the beginning, as they are soliciting more articles pro and con, and perhaps some that address the previous. So this debate will not unfold immediately, but over time. Patience shall be required for one of the few places welcoming openly dissenting views. I shall be watching, as debate is healthy, and data and science on this are not absolute… and weather patterns are certainly not done exhibiting more change that are contrary to the accepted conclusions. Reconciling their predictions with reality is something I’m interested in reading. If you are as well, you should bookmark the APS Newsletter main page.

BTW, when I read these two opposing pieces yesterday, there was *no disclaimer in red* over Monckton’s piece at that time. That has been added in the past 15 hours or so…. perhaps because of media misinterpretation without reading the editor’s comments. Leave it to the press to not read…

I also notice they do not place any info or disclaimers over the pro-AGW view, including whether or not that piece went thru a “peer review”. As it’s not complete, and only makes a referral saying: We will not review the scientific literature, as that path is well trod”, we can assume this piece, like Monckton’s, merely qualifies with the demand they “stick to the science” and is not a peer reviewed paper as well.

Again, this disappoints me, as I believe an equal disclaimer should be put over both. But we should be thankful for the small favor of the slight opening of minds.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well it looks like the APS has denied any of this as per this statement on their main page:


“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.”

Kcanova, good catch. You beat me to the punch.

Also note the Daily Tech site Scott links to provided an update on July 17, indicating the APS’ disclaimer. Maybe the Daily Tech should have vetted its story better.

Nice try, Scott. Tell the Heatmeiser the Parrot says “Hi.”

As usual and right on cue the deniers of debate arrive to suggest once again that any disagreement with their clearly flawed conclusions is not valid.

Well, we’ve beat that dead horse enough. I’m sure readers here don’t need to see it all hashed out again.

The bottom line is that the suggestion that we can alter the earth’s climate by following the massive changes in lifestyle and our economy put forward by the globaloney crowd is laughable.

It won’t make the slightest difference and meanwhile, REAL human problems like world hunger, literacy, poverty and disease will go unanswered.

Trillions of dollars will be WASTED if the globaloney zealots get their way.

That’s the legacy of the debate deniers: a world with more poverty, hunger and disease with those in Africa and the developing world hardest hit.

Thanks a lot deniers.

Saying that the many scientists who get published in a journal are represented by the editorial board of that journal is like saying all the citizens of a country agree with the rulers of that country. If that’s the case, then I guess all those Russians really did think that Communism was a wonderful system. I wonder who tricked them into changing their minds?

UPDATE – And, I wonder who tricked these 100 scientists, from around the world, into opposing AGW? Do you suppose the big bad oil is behind it? (…you would, wouldn’t you greenie goons?!)

“non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later” — (APS Forum, editor’s comments)

I don’t know of any responsible scientist who would disagree with that, even though it may prove to be untrue, research into alternative energy sources is probably a good idea.

…and the best way to ensure that happens is to preserve a strong economy, which, at the moment, depends on oil. Shutting it down with draconian taxation that will only enrich certain well placed special interests (like Al Gore and his ilk), will dramatically slow, or even prevent, the discoveries we are told that we need to make.

Even with all Al Gore’s hot air, there isn’t enough wind power to provide even a fraction of the energy we need. Therefore, law makers need to stop preventing nuclear power stations and new oil refineries from being built. To discover new technologies, they need to allow researchers to decide what to look for, not legislate what must or what must not be done.

ALSO – Please note that if the science was settled (as they apparently earlier claimed), APS would only have to present the opposition, show were it is wrong. Also, if the “vast majority of scientists” are in agreement, they merely need to document that. The fact that they have to go through the motions of pretending to be impartial means their position is NOT as strong as they previously asserted that it was.

100 scientists !!! wow 100 is a really big number. Yonason you could get twice that number to say that the earth is only 10,000 years old and that Adam walked with the dinosaurs like Fred Flintstone. If you really want to support the denial of global climate change vote for RON PAUL he is the only candidate that holds that position.

Does the Goracle know about this? I say let’s go back to the days when Horse power really meant horse power, and manure was all over the place. Flies hovering about bringing disease and sickness, where the live span was only 60 years if that. Yeah let’s do that, all for what? That fat Goracle doesn’t care he has his Schtick and he’s reveling in it , that fat pompous pig.

Ron Paul is he out on compassionate leave from the Asylum? Vote for Ron Paul and bring back the Third Reich.


The link to the “100 scientists” should have been…


Also, here’s one I gave on another thread, but works here, too…

And it isn’t their number that should impress, but their credentials.

I wonder if we can go as far as saying the APS is having an “Obama moment?”

P.s., and pay no attention to the volcanic activity behind the curtain…

Finally (for now) the data they base their “temperatures are rising” = “sky is falling” prognostications is JUNK!

APS UNMASKED! – It’s even worse than I thought

…or, as it’s titled at GreenieWatch, “Deceitful ass-covering by the American Physical Society exposed”

Here’s an excerpot from an email from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the president of the APS.

“The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines. I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper.

The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain.

The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

“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.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.”

This is why I make no pretense of respecting the thoughtless drivel of arrogant sycophants who mock us because we think, and so don’t follow them in trusting those sleezy manipulators implicitly. Give the trolls thoughtful analysis, and they give us back raw sewage, … [good in followed by garbage out => defective processor. Interact at own risk].

Anyway, is it that the APS is no less human than Hillary, and they, like her, have “misspoken?” Heck no. THEY LIED, TOO!

You’ll note, Mr. Yon, that in my last two paragraphs of the “Update by MataHarley” in Scott’s post that I pointed out they added the red disclaimer after the fact. And that I was quite disgruntled they did not add the same disclaimer of “not peer reviewed” over the pro AGW view. It says quite plainly in the editors comments that this debate was not constituting “peer review” for the statements published.

I’m glad Lord Monckton caught it, and is screaming bloody murder. But perhaps his email should be forwarded to the editor, Jeffrey Marque as it is probably him, or his underlings, who added the disclaimer.

Thanks for staying up on the latest/greatest. Terrific add by you.

“I pointed out they added the red disclaimer after the fact.” — M.H.

Yep. That’s why I picked up on it; because you had earlier pointed that out. Otherwise I might not have made the connection.

Viscount Monkton is one smart cookie. I glanced at that paper and I’d hate to have to debate HIM on the facts.

No wonder Gore refuses.


Here’s one I’ll be posting again…

The Sun, then and now

Solar activity is down, and the earth has begun to cool. And it’s probably going to remain that way for a decade or two. D’OH!

My plans on moving north are currently on hold.

follow space weather here

and here

Welcome Aners!


It seems I messed up the link, but not to worry, here’s another with lots more scientists.

I know that won’t be enough to satisfy John Ryan, a genius in his own mind, but all you people out there who actually have a brain might be interesed.


Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted
Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is “something greater than the Greenhouse Effect,” but it is in effect. What that “something” is, is natural variability.

NASA’s propagandists call it a “speed bumb” and believe with perfect faith that AGW will take off again, ….as soon as their fantasy world becomes real.


says… “If you want to know how I broke your site, send $ 20 WMZ: Z385450145510 and e-mail c3m3t3ry@gmail.com Thanks.”

to which I respond…

“Kung nais mong malaman kung paano ko isinalin na ang iyong mensahe, magpadala ng $ 40 para sa aking mga kaibigan sa Flopping Aces: Thanks.”

BTW, what do you mean “broke your site?” …getting by the spam filter using a foreign language?

Company: Google, Inc.
Location: Mountain View, CA
IP Address:

First time posting here.
Can anyone tell me their opinion of the forum thus far.
Leave me a post and introduce yourself.

See ya, .