Forum on Physics and Society (FPS), a subdivision of the American Physical Society (APS) recently reversed its stance on human-induced global warming,
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.
This changed stance coincides with a paper by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, which posits,
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation
of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:
- Radiative forcing ΔF;
- The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
- The feedback multiplier ƒ.
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.
It should not be long James Hansen call for the prosecution of the author for “high crimes against humanity and nature.”
yojoe out
Filed under: Anthropogenic Climate Change, Anthropomorphic Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Man-Made Global Warming, Politics, Science
But, Yojo, the Viscount Monckton is not part of the scientific community, he’s certainly not a physicist, and the shorter version of his whole (non-peer reviewed) paper is “if I divide one parameter in one equation by 300%, well, climate sensitivity disappears”. With the Monckton equation, the whole athmosphere becomes irrelevant.
His opinion doesn’t represent in any way the opinion of real physicists, and doesn’t doesn’t have any significance about the “scientific consensus’, because, once again, he’s not a climatologist or even a scientist.
And his article is strewn with amateurish math errors, his biggest scientific error being the flimsiest rationale given for the chosen value of his parameter.
_Arthur – How does one become a member of the “scientific community”? And, why would that matter?
Dread, usually a Ph.D in sciences, and a record of publications in the appropriate domain (climatology), are considered.
Remember, this paper has been offered as profe that there is “no consensus IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY”.
The blogs Deltoid and Dua Quartuncia found gross errors in the viscount numerology. Real Climate even found more.
No matter how poor the paper is, the GW denialists are using it to claim that there is a “controversy”, that’s all that’s matter to them.
_Arthur – Were the errors similar to the errors found in the NASA GISS data?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The larger point is that science does not rely on consensus. And, there should never be a silencing of opinions on a scientific topic. Would adherents to Newtonian physics sought to silence the new theory of general relativity? No. But, climate change, or is it still global warming, is somehow different.
But science does rely on consensus. You win acceptance by presenting papers supported by solid data.
Nobody is “silenced”. The viscount has presented similar botched numerology in the Sunday Telegraph. His opinion has all the scientific weight of the average taxi driver.
Adherents to Newtonian physics did object loudly to Einstein’s far-fetched theories. Einstein gained acceptance by presenting peer-reviewed papers backed by solid math. By the way, Einstein was a physicist. The Viscount is a journalist.
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
What’s this! The scientists crying shrilly that AGW is real and we must pay to stop it do not have degrees in climatology? Or even climate related sciences? Surely not?
Hi. I repeatedly be familiar with this forum. This is the oldest period unequivocal to ask a ridiculous.
How multitudinous in this forum are references progressive behind, knavish users?
Can I depute all the communication that there is?
Hello
I’ve just registered to say your site is very useful and nicely done!
Thank you very much for your work.
Cheers!
Sorry for offtopic.
Thanks!,
I’m the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death…
Hi All,
I wanted to share with you a great site I’ve found for Wallpapers etc. is Esnips.com I’ve found everything on my list…
let me know what you think!, Hope this helps
I’m Out