Physicists Group: Global Warming Open Issue

The utterly offensive thing about the whole “global warming” movement has been its attempt to stifle discussion, demean and marginalize critics and make their views the official orthodoxy -- dissent from which merits punishment.

You can see examples here, and here and here.

The fascists have received a major setback from members of an important scholarly organization.

In a posting to the [Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society], 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.”

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton’s paper an “expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and “extensive errors.”

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, “I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central ‘climate sensitivity’ question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method.”

Note that the larger organization, the American Physical Society, has not blacked off it’s official position that there is anthropogenic global warming. The bureaucrats who head these scholarly organizations tend to take the standard politically correct position, and physicists (like academics generally) skew heavily liberal, and can be expected to favor any notion that increases government’s power over the economy.

But quite reputable scientists within the organization disagree. And there is apparently enough academic freedom within the organization for them to engage the debate.