With mixed signals, American Physical Society opens debate on global warming

I’m happy to hear that part of the American Physical Society is welcoming a debate (of at least two sides) on the once-undebatable global warming doctrine, but some odd things are going on.

The APS seems to be wrestling with itself.

One APS group, “Forum on Physics & Society,” says on its Web site:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC [the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change] 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.

‘Incontrovertible’ reaffirmed. But as soon as this acknowledgement of a “considerable presence” of skepticism appeared in the blogosphere today, the parent American Physical Society issued a statement saying the APS Forum doesn’t speak for the APS.

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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Article of faith. Exactly what is the APS saying? That there is no “considerable presence” of scientists who question whether rising levels of CO2 and methane are increasing global temperatures?

Here is the full APS official position of Nov. 18, 2007:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Minds closed or open? So APS says “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” Really?

It’s hard to start a debate with the moderator announcing the debate is closed, but OK. This “incontrovertible” position can be tested. Is our atmosphere growing hotter every year? Let’s see the evidence, and let’s have an honest, scientific debate, free of faith-based politics.

Frank Warner

Comments

[jj mollo]

The evidence that CO2 is rising in the atmosphere is incontrovertible. Everything else can be challenged at some level. But consider an analogy. Take a look at how long it took to prove beyond a doubt that cigarettes were bad for you. Nevertheless, there was always enough evidence available that sensible people could take the hint and stop smoking. Only people who had a vested interest, meaning cigarette producers, tobacco growers and denialist smokers, remained skeptical until the very end. (Yes, I have heard of smokers who lived til their 90s.)

The historically unusual level of CO2 in our atmosphere may not actually end up being disastrous, no one knows for sure, but it strikes me as unwise to take the risk. For one thing, it's pretty clear that the pH of the oceans is changing due to the excess levels of CO2. Hot or cold, changing the chemistry of the oceans has got to be a bad idea.

I guess there are motivations for people to lie about this. But think about the analogy again. Did doctors argue in favor of smoking? They certainly stood to gain from smoking.

So here's an ABC video about the pH problem if you need pictures.

[Frank Warner]

Obviously, we should avoid altering environmental balances. But the question also is, Which environmental change is most dangerous, and how much should we do about it?

CO2 is increasing, no doubt. But there is no incontrovertible evidence that the globe's atmosphere is continuing to warm up, and there is no specific figure on how much CO2 should be cut back to avoid unacceptable harm.

If the oceans were going to rise 23 feet this century, as Al Gore implied in his movie (by referring to current populations and leaving out dates), that would be much more urgent than if it's more likely the seas will rise only 2 or 3 feet in 100 years.

Majorities now are in favor of building more nuclear power plants. Some of the support is based on avoiding more CO2 emissions. Some is aimed at avoiding dependence on foreign dictators' energy supplies.

Productive compromise clearly is possible. We just need leaders willing to lead.

[Neo]

Once the "ncontrovertible" status is expunged, all member of the APS who held this position should resign and be banned from federal grant money.