Lindzen, Christy and Curry appointed to APS climate statement review panel

Realistic at last?

Realistic at last?

That faint noise you can hear in the distance is the sound of John Cook’s and Dana Nuccitelli’s heads popping.

The American Physical Society, which previously issued a highly alarmist statement regarding climate change, is to review it, and has appointed three climate realists to the panel of six. The news release states:

Preparations are under way by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) to review and possibly update the society’s statement on climate change. In the coming months, the APS membership will have a chance to weigh in on any proposed revisions before the society adopts a final draft.

“We intend to keep the membership informed at every stage in this process,” said Robert Jaffe a physicist at MIT and Chair of POPA. “We’re quite eager to make sure that the revision of the climate change statement is done in the most open and orderly way.”

The subcommittee of POPA that is conducting the review posted its background and research materials to the APS website, along with its charge. The research materials include the transcripts of the subcommittee’s January workshop, biographical information on outside climate experts who participated in the workshop, and their slide presentations. These materials are now available online.

The APS recognises that Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Judith Curry have a great deal to contribute to the climate debate. How long will the headbangers at Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science continue to refer to them as ‘climate misinformers’ (i.e. people we disagree with)? Or perhaps they will simply add the APS to the list instead…! Nothing would surprise me.

Tony Thomas at Quadrant Online has much more here.

Comments

  1. I can’t wait to read what they say, can we have a count down, you know, how many more sleeps there will be before the New Report will be issued. N

  2. The marvellous Jo Nova said the tipping point in the fight against CAGW was 18 Sep. 2013; this seems to be proving here right. Lets hope this proves to be as good as it sounds.
    Nils illegitimus carborundum

  3. To think that physicists would fall for the IPCC’s jibberish!

    About time they grew some b…s, er, common sense.

    • Science relies to a much greater extent than commonly recognized on the trustworthiness of colleagues, especially across disciplines. While repeatability is a vital keystone in science, no scientist has the knowledge, time or funds to be an absolute sceptic and replicate all work in all fields. Consequently, despite the obvious fallacy, science leans on trust and authority in order to short-cut the road to new knowledge and discovery. Ideally, results that contradict a common place in science should be weighted far more than the opinion of an “expert” – who may merely defending turf anyway. But, being aware of one’s own ignorance and the complexity of an issue like climate means that many who should absolutely know better, still follow the broad and flowery path of lazy acceptance.

      • luisadownunder says:

        Global warming is not science and there is nothing complex about carbon dioxide.

        I follow a blog by Czech physicist, Lubos Motl, called ‘The Reference Frame’. He didn’t waste time with the “science” because there isn’t any.

      • luisadownunder says:

        Global warming isn’t science and there is nothing complicated about carbon dioxide.

        I follow a blog by Czech physicist, Lubos Motl called “The Reference Frame”. He didn’t waste time with the so-called “science” because there isn’t any.

  4. jimkress35m Kress says:

    Maybe, now, I’ll renew my membership in the APS.

  5. Reasonable Guy says:

    I am truly hoping that this is the watershed moment we have all been waiting for. Essentially a professional scientific organization is doing an audit of the IPCC process. The questions they are posing are quite frank and likely quite revealing.

    I am very curious how the IPCC will respond.

  6. David L. Hagen says:

    Distinguish committee MEMBERS vs EXPERTS
    The APS Climate Change Statement Review states:

    The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom. The Charge to the Subcommittee was approved by POPA and the APS Executive Board and is included in the Supporting Documents links.

    Distinguish Members from the Experts that presented evidence to the committee:
    APS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios, listing
    John R. Christy, William Collins, Judith Curry, Isaac Held, and Richard Lindsen

  7. Lindzen, Christy and Curry are certainly an impressive trio.

    But while the three are busy providing a reality check for the APS, who will be doing the same for the dozens of other organizations seeking to artiticulate positions on climate policy ?

    If Lindzen , Christy and Curry are the A Team, and , Spencer, Michaels and Legates are the B team of skeptics who command professional respect as climate scientists, where are Teams C through Z ?

    How far down the list can you get before you run out of A Team timber, or even paid carbon lobbyists like Singer and Soon, and have to turn to folks who have never published more than PR handouts and puff pieces for vanity press journals founded for the purpose, like Energy and Enivironment?

  8. I think I just saw Joe Romm jump out of a window.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,706 other followers

%d bloggers like this: