Debate that’s over isn’t over.

In fact, the debate that was supposed to be over is just getting started among the physicists of America. The American Physical Society (APS) editorial comment makes you want to rub your eyes, blink. shake your head and wonder "did I just read this"?

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. 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 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. Source:http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Politicians who are already implementing public policy in the belief that the debate was over may wonder if they have jumped the gun. It will be instructive to know what the physicists conclude as the debate unfolds.

July 17,2008.  This just in from:http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible".

The theory of global warming is a physics theory so the debate is happening exactly where it should be happening-among the physicists. It can never be wrong to review theories in the light of emerging evidence.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in climate. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s