Date: Mon Mar 9 17:01:35 2009
Author: Bill Alexander
Subject: Re: Climate Change - Is it Controversial?
It is completely consistent to say "Emissions of greenhouse gases
from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
the Earth's climate." and yet for "huge number of physicists being
against the global warming consensus" if it comes to pass that
greenhouse gasses make a small but measurable change rather than the
"global warming consensus" that calls for huge government
expenditures and social change.
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
>I have seen the claim about a "huge number of physicists" being
>against the global warming consensus, but if it's what I'm thinking
>that is a largely overblown claim based upon the misrepresentation
>of an opinion article. The article is called "Climate Sensitivity
>Reconsidered" and is authored by Christopher Monckton. However, as
>the APS states...
>"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review,
>since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society
>newsletters. 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
>The APS itself spoke a bit more on this topic, especially the claim
>that many thousands of physicists are now supposedly against the
>global warming consensus, on its website on July 17th, 2008 when it
>"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newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."
>Just some food for thought.
>Lake Forest HS
>College of Lake County
>On Mar 9, 2009, at 1:57 PM, John Hubisz wrote:
>>(Yes, it is cut and dry for the majority of scientists - but it is not so
>>for the general public.)
>>That is not true. There are at least 32,000 scientists (9000
>>physicists) who do not think that it is "cut and dry" and more are
>>joining them as as scientists retire and finish out grants.
>>And if the general public includes weathermen/meteorologists and
>>economists that adds to the group.
>>Bill Norwood wrote:
>>>I thought there was no remaining question
>>>that we are threatened by climate change
>>>that will do major physical and economic damage
>>>if we don't change our ways.
>>>But these guys, involved in the March 8-10, New York,
>>>International Conference on Climate Change,
>>>including some physicists, don't think so.
>>>Anybody got insight?
>>>Thanks, Bill Norwood, U of MD at College Park
Humboldt State University