Less than a week after the AAAS, “the world’s largest non-government general science membership organization and the executive publisher of Science.” publishes a climate catastrophist document, ( defects discussed here), the 50,000 strong American body of physicists (APS) looks poised to inject scientific realism into the subject.

From Finally, Some Real Climate Science:

The same APS put out a formal statement in 2007 adding its voice to the alarmist hue and cry. That statement caused resignations of some of its top physicists (including 1973 Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara).[1] The APS was forced by 2010 to add some humiliating clarifications but retained the original statement that the evidence for global warming was ‘incontrovertible’.[2]

By its statutes, the APS must review such policy statements each half-decade and that scheduled review is now under way, overseen by the APS President Malcolm Beasley.

The review, run by the society’s Panel on Public Affairs, includes four powerful shocks for the alarmist science establishment.[3]

First, a sub-committee has looked at the recent 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and formulated scores of critical questions about the weak links in the IPCC’s methods and findings. In effect, it’s a non-cosy audit of the IPCC’s claims on which the global campaign against CO2 is based.

(emphasis mine)

“scores of critial questions” is exactly right, as you can see by reading the article, where they quote many of these questions. If you read between the lines, it seems mightily implausible that non-embarrassing, pro-catastrophic, answers can be given to many such questions.

Furthermore, the review sub-committee is not just going to be stacked with climate catastrophists, but will also have prominent so-called “climate change deniers” – Lindzen, Christy, and Curry. (Not a one of whom denies that climate changes. Also, neither Lindzen nor Curry (and probably Christy, but I don’t want to research it) deny that AGW occurs.

That fact, coupled with the fact that the entire process is to be publicly transparent, inspires considerable hope in yours truly that APS is sincere about looking at climate change scientifically, (which implies openly), and that realistic skepticism about catastrophic scenarios cannot be suppressed.

Oh, dear, what will Naomi Oreskes say, now? That the APS should be brought up on RICO charges? Will Professor Torcello now inform the world that the APS consists of “criminals”?