Deathly news for the religion of Global Warming. Looks like at least one prominent scientific group has changed its mind about the irrefutability of evidence regarding man made climate change.

The American Physical Society representing nearly 50,000 physicists "has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming," according to an article in The Daily Tech. The leadership of the society had previously referred to global warming evidence as "incontravertible."

What does this mean? It doesn't mean that the APS has abandoned its position on man made climate change. What they have done is perhaps more significant; they have opened the subject up for debate once again. And once the facts can be judged on their merits and not on who is submitting them, at the very least global warming deniers have a powerful platform to present their findings.

And the first shot across the bow is directed at the Nobel Prize winning group, the IPPC which one scientist discovered has been fudging its studies to hide the fact that increased C02 does not necessarily lead to increased temps:

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method." 

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."