[1] A post by an editor of the American Physical Society has triggered a round of denials and repercussions.

The inflammatory sentences were

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.

This was reported in the [2] Daily Tech, among other sites.

Apparently this was too much for the American Physical Society, which issued a denial of the denial. They cited the [3] APS National Policy statement adopted only last November.

Sorry, no permalink of the denial at [4] the APS site, but here is the statement:

APS Position Remains Unchanged

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.”

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.  The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.”  This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

In the meantime, the [5] Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, author of a [6] global-warming-critical report published on the APS P&S site, [7] notes that his work has been red-tagged. Minus headers, I quote nearly the entirety of his letter to the APS ([8] thank you, Jonah Goldberg):

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American
Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008
edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be
expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The
commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to
all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached
reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for
physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC
evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself
clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some
days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following
appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website
of Physics and Society:

“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its
conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had
submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points
requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and
published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been
offered or having requested any honorarium.

The punchline is lovingly crafted and scalding in its implication:

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have
the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to
it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text
to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and
ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings
were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of
the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated
or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific
justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo,
that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had;
secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no
evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific
community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical
Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my
conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific
grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an
apology?

Now, I have occasionally been a member of the APS, but am not currently, since my interests have drifted away from nuclear physics and toward rocket science. I missed the news that the Council had endorsed the IPCC position. My personal opinion is that the case on anthropogenic climate change is not closed, that the much-touted consensus is fragile at best, and that much of the science is hastily publicized and of sub-standard quality. On the other hand, the rise in CO2 concentration is real, it is anthropogenic, and the risks of deliberate ignorance are substantial, even if the optimum course turns out to be patience and research. If you need a label, I am a skeptic, not a denier.

In short, this is not the same situation that we face with creationists and evolution. Monckton’s argument is clearly a scientific one and should not be cast aside in favor of an artificial and ill-conceived political consensus.

(h/t [9] Jon Woolf and [10] Rand Simberg)