What do you think about the American Physical Society's decision to review it's statement of support for agw?

It's good to hear an intelligent and knowledgeable person give an explanation of the real scientific understanding of the climate issue.

The link below gives a non technical summery of the genuine scientific understanding of the issue.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/729.pdf

Having worked with the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St Petersberg, the general opinion there is that the contribution of human carbon emissions to global temperature lies somewhere in the second place of decimals of a degree centigrade. And that the 'man made, catastrophe soon' story favoured by the mass media is not supported by the science

Review is always fine with me, and fine with most scientists. I'm sure that's why they agreed to the review.

But I consider it extremely unlikely that the APS will change its existing statement. There has been nothing published in the past 2 years to justify any such change.

Since the decision to endorse global warming was never a scientific one but a political one, I do not think they will overturn this decision. But it does show that the number of skeptical scientists are growing and beginning to stand up and fight back.

The did not. They had RE-AFFIRMED their statement following an article by a non-scientist on their newsletter. The APS' position supported by their body includes:

"anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution".

The APS has not decided to change its statement of support for AGW. A group is calling for the APS to reconsider its policy statement, that's all.

Ehm..

I found a free download of Adobe Reader here http://j.mp/1jW6ayn

You need to have Adobe Flash Player to be able to open pdf files.

Best of luck!

The question as stated doesn't seem to match the facts and I would not bother with any site that uses Newsmax as a source.

Whats with the newsreader he looks like Saddam Hussein and was dressed in the mid 1970s.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You are right Antarctic the climatephysics homepage has suddenly changed that is odd there still seems to be a reference to it if you do a google search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENA...

When I did it, it was the third item down. Depending were you are in the world it may be different, but it does seem suspicious that it was suddenly changed as it did make the site look ultra right wing.

Sort of like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube !

There's nothing wrong with reviewing it, as we learn more about the science it should be reviewed. I don't think these policy statements were supposed to remain unchanged forever.

By the way, I think you mean "its," not "it's."

This is a consensus anomaly that will be corrected in the next version of the computer consensus model.

Man made global warming concensus is a fact, so this is not really happening.

Actually the true story is, the lack of concensus has not been studied and peer reviewed, so there is no concensus on the lack of concensus.

Even though it was their news letter, it is not true, since it has not gone through any peer review, like all of thier news letters.

So don't believe their statement that there is no lack of consensus, becuase their statement that the lack of concensus is not peer reviewed, was itself not peer reviewed.

They were unable to just say the lack of concensus was not true.

"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 Earth's climate".

Given the source you quote, not much, given the rubbish on the climatephysics home page even less.

http://www.climatephysics.com/default.html

I'd take anything they said with a grain of salt and Fred Singer adds nothing to it's credibility

(when I posted the link to the above homepage, just 4 hours ago, it contained a story on Obama with a supposed link to a PDF of his African birth certificate, which has now suddenly disappeared and been replaced with a message from Ed dated 17th July)

I find that interesting davem, or should I call you Ed?

Plus as this is 3 months old and there has been no change to the real APS statement

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

I would say it is as fictional as the phrasing of your question.

Singer seems to be making a habit of these sort of sad lists with the standard "including a Nobel laureate" comment which is, as usual Ivar Giaever who's Nobel prize was in electronics research in semiconductors as is his entire career.

I will freely admit I am wrong, as soon as you post a link to the APS that states they are changing their statement, clearly your link has nothing to do with APS, and as I said at the top of this answer given the content of climatephysics site homepage they are about as credible as this site

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/MeninBlack.htm

"For antatctica, who seems unable to read properly"

Sadly, I read well enough to understand that the APS with a membership of 46,000 who vote to elect their leadership, while I'm not big on betting I think the odds of them changing a position based on a letter from just fifty-four current and former members is highly unlikely if not utterly ridiculous.