Russ Steele
In our climate change discussion on this blog and on
NCFocus Anna's often based her argument on an appeal to authority, listing a long collection of Societies that supported the notion that humans were responsible for climate change. But, one of the dangers of using an appeal to authority argument is the cited authority may change it's position and leave appealer hung out to dry.
Lubos Motl at the
Reference Frame has a post this morning that the American Physical Society (APS) is reviewing its previous position on climate change. Lubos Motl writes:
Climate alarmism is a particularly embarrassing attitude for professional institutions that should represent disciplines with very high intellectual standards because climate alarmism is associated with extremely poor intellectual (and ethical) standards, besides other negative characteristics.
The American Physical Society (APS) was therefore embarrassed on November 18th, 2007 when its bodies approved an alarmist statement that was much more constructive and issue-oriented than the statements of many institutions outside physics but it was still a scientists' variation of the same blinded, biased, irrational hysteria.
Details leading up to the change can be found
here. Nature just published a letter from six members that informs reader that the APS is currently reviewing its 2007 position on climate change.
On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues.
I expect more of scientific societies to be reversing their positon as the weight of the evidence for human caused global warming declines, and evidence for sun and cloud interaction becomes much clearer. Anna is going to need a new argument.
Recent Comments