American physicists warned not to debate global warming

Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don’t read this, they say - we don’t agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?

It’s an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS’s newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.

“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,” he wrote.

| story |

And how is this not censorship? Oh Yeah! Since it is from the pro “global warming” side, it is allowed. :cool:

I really don’t care about the global warming debates which seem so popular here, but I’ve never heard of a version of the Medusa myth where she turns men blind. I have always heard she turns men to stone.

I wondered the same thing. We could ask Andrew Orlowski who wrote the article. You can find out more about him by clicking here. Or, email him by clicking here.

That’s debatable.

So you know a story where Medusa turns men blind?

No, but the post is about the lack of debate. So, lets have a debate.:wink:

Correct. The real issue is the coercive attempt by the APS to censor debate. Something that they have accused the right of doing. However, it is obviously apparent it is the left that is the real censors on this issue.

Free Speech: 2nd Amendment rights … but only for the politically correct. In this case, if you don’t agree with the global warming dogma, you do not have free speech.

Pure show trial Stalinist policy.

Folks reading this should research the show trials carried on in the Soviet Union.

The show trials weren’t about guilt or innocence; they were about mouthing the Communist Party line.

[By the way, the show trials were real. ]

Have any of the Pro-Man Made Global Warming crowd commented here yet? NO? Avoiding the fact of censorship in droves are we? If there was a “consensus” this “warning” wouldn’t have been necessary.

Ah, so the APS actually encouraged deniers to write about their beliefs, and even gave them a forum in which to print their ideas, but had the audacity to still disagree with them?

My goodness, such censorship! How dare they?

This is the core of the denier outlook; if you don’t agree with them, you are “censoring” them. I haven’t seen any denier blogs posting scientific data supporting warming. That’s different, I suppose.

Compare to government scientists who were told to avoid the press, and had their reports showing warming altered by bureaucrats. Some were even threatened with loss of their jobs.

That’s censorship. Providing a venue for people whose ideas you don’t agree with, that’s the opposite.

At least for normal people it is.

What censorship? The OP doesn’t even get it’s facts straight.

APS Bureaucrats? really? Do you even know what the APS is and who is in it?

The claim that they are discouraging scientists from reading the article is a blatant lie. They simply added a statement clarifying that the article was not peer reviewed and that the position of the society with regards to global warming has not changed. This was done in response to dishonest claims made by global warming deniers. (They claimed that the APS had changed it’s position and that the article had undergone scientific peer reviewed.)

They’re discouraging debate…in an issue this important that’s horrible.

(Barbarian points out that the APS encouraged deniers to express their POV, and even gave them a venue in which to do it, but still disagrees with them)

They’re discouraging debate…

It seems they are doing just the opposite. How many denier groups would be willing to do that?

in an issue this important that’s horrible.

It’s horrible to encourage discussion? I don’t see how. If they are “discouraged” that other people don’t agree with them, then they can’t have much confidence in their beliefs.

If you find some denier group that encourages scientists who assert that anthropogenic warming is a fact, and even give them the freedom to present their unaltered papers on their site or in their publication, I’d have to say it would make a lot of people feel better about deniers.

And if someone did that, and scientists accused them of “censorship” because they still didn’t agree, you’d feel that the criticism was unfair, wouldn’t you?

Of course you would.

Yet, to them, censorship is OK and this is censorship… In fact, they consider debate censorship of their position since their position is not the only one present. The Orwellian mindset (slavery is freedom, freedom is slavery) of the “global warming” crowd is mind boggling.

That’s a bit of a distortion of the situation.

The deniers are making claims about the APS that are not true. It is the organization’s right and responsibility to correct the false information being spread about the organization. They are not discouraging debate, they are attempting to keep some dishonest debaters from claiming a non-existent APS endorsement of their position.

I’m still wondering what convoluted definition of “bureaucrat” the Register is using that could encompass the group of scientists that have volunteered their time, and were elected by their peers, to serve a term on the governing board of the APS.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.:wink:

I don’t think the people here made up this little dishonesty about “censorship.” It seems to me that some blogger or lobbyist put it out as a talking point, and many people accepted it without thinking about it very much.

Obviously, allowing the other side to present their case on your dime is not remotely like censorship; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a rather Orwellian notion that expressing disagreement is censorship.

I think in the case below, “bureaucrat” was used in the sense of “people I don’t like.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit