The American Physical Society (APS) is considering a departure from the “me too consensus” on global warming. The society may soon release a new position on manmade global warming. The statement is expected to seriously question the purportedly catastrophic phenomenon, according to Breitbart, but many remain skeptical that APS will side with the skeptics.
APS approached Professors Richard Lindzen (MIT), Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), and John Christy (U. Alabama at Huntsville), three notable AGW (anthropogenic global warming) skeptics for their input. In so doing, APS gives the impression it will review its position that the “science is settled.”
Recall that the notable physicist, Hal Lewis (UC Santa Barbara), resigned from the APS on its position on global warming. With two hundred signatures from his fellow members, Lewis petitioned the APS to change its position on AGW on beliefs that the revered society was scheming to support the hoax. The APS shunned Lewis. He went on to publicly decry global warming as “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
The growing discontent among its members and honored Fellows signaled the society that it should stand apart from other corrupted science societies such as AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), AGU (American Geophysical Union), AMS (American Meteorological Society), NAS (National Academy of Science).
Among the scientists of those corrupted societies stands the unethical Peter Gleik, head of AGU Ethics Committee, who misrepresented himself to phish and fake documents to promote the global warming cause.
Scores of other worldwide societies still stand with the global warming hoax to spread the hype. Why? For fame, glory, and most of all, for money. As Hal Lewis once put it:
There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory … that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department … would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.
A revised APS statement may eliminate the word "incontrovertible" but say the same thing in many more words. There is a slightly smaller probability that the new statement will be more balanced and couched in words that will allow both sides to declare some kind of victory. But, given that the skeptics win if there is any kind of legitimacy lent to their position, this in itself would tilt the field more toward the skeptics, a position that is extremely unlikely for the APS to take.
A revised statement will mark APS as the first science society to seriously consider skeptics' input. Whether the society will follow through with a truly revised statement remains to be seen. We would be well advised not to hold our CO2 laden breath.