re Charles 1084

Again with the lists.

The point of the lists was to show you that there are leading physicists—-APS Fellows, NAS members, ex-lab directors, Maxwell Prize winners, and so forth—
who do not accept AGW story. Their is absolutely no such comparable list for ID. I hope Ludwig [1083] takes a look at the list a bit more carefully. These are practicing scientists.

Many on this list are very well known. Furthermore, there are plenty of physicists who prefer the proposed statement I linked to the current APS statement that is under revision. [see my post 1078]. The signers are not young, in part because young people avoid such a politically charged topic and want to gain scientific credentials before standing out like the signers of this petition do.
But the leaders are mainstream well-respected physicists and are not being ignored by the APS.

Re Ludwigs’ comment that I should look at the consensus scientific websites: I have, many times. They give reasons why one would be worried about AGW—they do not prove anything. The the word ‘proof’ has some technical meaning. So does ‘falsehood’. Running GCMs with and without CO2 and comparing to the 20th century climate is not proof. Not even for the IPCC. Nothing justifies the APS ‘incontrovertible’ statement. It goes beyond the IPCC and, I suspect, will fall if the statement is rewritten. No physicist I have talked to about it supports the inclusion of ‘incontrovertible’.