What the hell are you babbling about now? American Physical Society "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."
The official statements of a "science org" is the last group to admit to changes in science. To see how the future is unfolding you have to take a good look at how a "science org" determines its positions. This is done by the members through very well defined methods. If you open your eyes you will see that the APS is in the process of reversing its alarmist position. If you keep your eyes closed you will see the same thing, but you will have to wait until the official position is updated, probably this year or the next. This is a good description of what the left *really* thinks about science. They're all in favor of science that supports their political goals and anything else must be the work of "right wing nut jobs". This is how the Soviet Union got into trouble with Lysenko's biology theories and it's been duplicated many times since then, most recently with GMO fears, various pesticide scares, the absurd claim that the honeybee is in trouble, the books of the 1970s that said that the world would be starving in the 1980s, the claim that cell phones cause brain cancer and the campaign against vaccines and other drugs marketed by large capitalist (and therefore evil) corporations. All of these anti-science campaigns are leftist crap. They support it only because it supports their bizarre politics. But more importantly, if physicists don't believe the climate scientists, why should the rest of the public? Of course you've seen the statements by Nobel prize winning physicists on climate science. What you probably didn't know is that those views are not uncommon among physicists in general.
No, the APS is not in the process of reversing it's position. Know why? CO2 is still a greenhouse gas. As a computational physicist maybe you did not know this.
Obviously you didn't read the transcript of the APS workshop on Climate Change. If you had, you'd have learned that both sides agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Also both sides agree that mankind (especially fossil fuels) has substantially increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And both sides agree that this has a warming effect on climate. None of that is a subject of debate at the APS workshop. Hey, if you look around the web you can find plenty of people who disagree about CO2 being a greenhouse gas and some of them have some science credentials but it's not a serious position. No, the APS position on Climate Change was not so simple as "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". What they said was that it was incontrovertible that climate change was a serious problem. That is what was subject to debate and that is where the alarmists lost. You might read the part of the workshop that deals with "climate sensitivity". If climate sensitivity is sufficiently low, then the increase in temperature caused by the increase in CO2 is low enough to be disregarded. Of course the first people to realize that CO2 was not a threat to the planet were climate scientists. And of course they're not out telling the public that climate change is not a threat because they need the public to provide them with funding. But when they got interviewed by journalists, many of them privately told the journalists. You can also find them saying the same thing in their blogs. That's why journalism have been much more open recently to the "lukewarmist" view on climate change. If you were aware of what is going on in the industry you'd be pushing "ocean acidification" instead of "climate change". It's the next big thing. But it's going to be kinda hard to push, at least until the memory of climate change decays away. Estimates of climate sensitivity have been steadily decreasing for 30 years. If you read the peer reviewed literature you'd know this already. For example, here's a blog post by James Annan from 2006: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html And who is James Annan? He's the climate scientist famous for betting against "climate change denialists". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Annan
Climate change is the Trojan horse. Once inside the walls and accepted, world government and world taxation jump out of the horse, closely followed by a plan to control the unspoken evil cause of climate change.....world population.
The reason you haven't already heard of this from your own side is that they are very careful about what information they leak to their believers. For example, here's the "Skeptical Science" report on the Koonin article at the WSJ: The Wall Street Journal downplays global warming risks once again ... http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2684 Go ahead and read it. You'll find that there is no mention of the fact that Koonin chaired the APS workshop on climate change that was convened in order to reconsider the APS statement on climate science! Your leaders are keeping you in the dark and feeding you BS. ------------------------------------------ Used to be that the skeptics were ignored by scientific bodies. Now the infamous skeptic, Judith Curry (who is one of the 6 experts convened in the above Workshop) was *invited* to give a 30 minute talk at the national APS meeting, March 2014. This is the global warming believers rapidly losing control over the most prestigious science institution in the US: Causes and implications of the growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations Judith Curry, March 4, 2014 For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a 'hiatus' in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level. Potential causes for the model-observation discrepancies are discussed. A particular focus of the talk is the role of multi-decadal natural internal variability on the climate variability of the 20th and early 21st centuries. The ``stadium wave'' climate signal is described, which propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo. The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. Implications of the hiatus are discussed in context of climate model sensitivity to CO2 forcing and attribution of the warming that was observed in the last quarter of the 20th century. http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR14/Event/210790 Or read between the lines on the Physics Today (official publication of APS) report on the Koonin article: In January, when Steven E. Koonin welcomed participants to the Climate Change Statement Review Workshop that he was chairing for the American Physical Society, he made a point of acknowledging “experts who credibly take significant issue with several aspects of the consensus picture.” Participating, and fitting that description, were climate scientists Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy. ... http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8071
blah blah blah Is CO2 a very important greenhouse gas that we have raised the levels of by around 40%? How could that NOT cause warming? It's really all you need to know.
Speaking of Judith Curry. Here is what she has to say about the data.... Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.