While Copenhagen and its excesses rage, a quiet revolution is starting.
I’d show you the APS logo, but they are so [insert your own adjective here] that they demanded (in writing) the last time I used it that I not show it to anyone here.
So I’ll use this one:
A small group of scientists, spearheaded by Richard Lindzen of MIT (see his statement here) and including several prominent physicists, are asking the American Physical Society to rescind its political statement on climate change:
Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:
This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.
By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.
What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)
We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.
None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.
If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.
Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
(h/t to Bishop Hill)
NOTE: I made an error in the title, incorrectly attributing the push of this letter to Dr. Lindzen. This is now corrected. Dr. Lindzen has aligned himself with this effort, with an op-ed to the WSJ, which is listed on the Open Letter Website. More here: http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership.”
I agree with the sentiments but I do not think that it helps scientific credibility to have ages of the scientists added up to make 223yrs.
Their lives were experienced in parallel not serially !
Too late IMO, Copenhagen is going to happen, and its going to cost us all. Well, that is assuming we all dont die from CO2 poisoning first.
Having someone from ExxonMobil is a mistake. The Alarmists will have a field day with that. Sorry, guys but all you in the FF industry are going to have to keep distance from the rest of us who have nothing to do with the FF industry.
I wish everyone would write the universities they attended and ask them to remove hockey sticks and other such definitive statements regarding AGW from the university website until “the extent to which it is tainted can be determined.”
Threatening to withdrawal financial support may or may not be included in the request. Some risk-adverse universities may decide that it’s better to be safe than sorry. More might follow after the first one or two.
It really could snowball – just like companies which dropped Arthur Andersen as their auditor after the Enron scandal.
The letter only serves to prove that scientists, as a whole, are somewhat socially challenged. Adding the Exxon Mobil guy to the letter will be seized upon to discredit the request. JMO
“ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. ”
I agree with the sentiments but do not agree with adding up the the lives of the scientists to make it look like the experience is cumulative unlike real life when the lives are experienced in parallel.
I would expect that from a local newspaper reporter, not from this esteemed scientific group.
We use to trust the MSM but they got in bed with the politicians. Now they lie or hide stories so they can control what we think. Those who still think do not trust them anymore.
We used to trust most scientists but many of them are now in bed with the politicians too. They will lose our trust in the same manner.
I am ‘skeptical’ that we can trust any one any more.
We the public, the great unwashed and uneducated, simply request to be allowed to see;
The raw data
The algorithms used to adjust the raw data
And then to have explained to us the process whereby the conclusions are drawn.
This is nothing more than the process normally used, for example,for a new medicine or laundry detergent. It is what I expect for the MPG figures for a car.
Why should climate science be different ?
Do not tell me I am too stupid to understand it.
Do not tell your friends to hide the basic data from me.
Obama has listed CO2 as a threat to society to get around Congress and the Senate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6755201/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Barack-Obama-given-power-to-cut-greenhouse-gases.html
US is in the process of an illegal global government takeover.
1254345329
From: Tim Osborn
To: Michael Mann , Phil Jones
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed Sep 30 17:15:29 2009
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
And Osborn and Briffa ’06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Mike,
yes, you’re right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It’s attached. I wouldn’t say we were immune to the issue — results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we’re just counting proxies — I’m still amazed that Science
agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!
:-)). But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is (100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just “likely” that modern is warmer than MWP).
So, yes, it should be possible to find some subsets of data where MWP and Modern are comparable and similarly for some seasons and regions. And as you’ve pointed out before, if any season/region is comparable (or even has MWP>Modern) then it will probably be the northern high latitudes in summer time (I think you published on this, suggesting that combination of orbital forcing, land-use change and sulphate aerosols could cause this for that season/region, is that right?).
So, this Yamal thing doesn’t damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B (2006) and others support the “likely” statement rather than being conclusive.
Cheers
Tim
100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just “likely” that modern is warmer than MWP.
What, just likely that modern warmer than MWP, are we spending Billions on (just likely), I thought the science was settled and it was AGW.
Richard Wakefield (16:08:33):
“Sorry, guys but all you in the FF [fossil fuel] industry are going to have to keep distance from the rest of us who have nothing to do with the FF industry.”
Really, Richard? You never use gasoline? Fertilizer? Heating oil or natural gas? Plastic? Electricity generated by coal or methane?
Tell us how you do it.
Title is misleading to me (French speaker) :
Lindzen and others ask APS to put their policy statment on ice due to Climategate
Who is they ? Lindzen & others ?
(Also a typo : stat*e*ment)
How about “Lindzen and others ask APS to put its policy statement on ice due to Climategate” ?
Climategate is in danger of fizzling out, in my opinion. There is an urgent need for a new whistleblower to expose more underhanded and fraudulent behavior and practices within the man-made global warming community. Any dirt coming from within NASA, NOAA or similar would be welcome. Of course, most of the other pseudoscientists in this cabal would have deleted all sorts of compromising emails and documents from their servers by now.
Its sad that fossil fuel experience works as some sort of disqualifier, especially now that we know (due to the CRU leak) that the warmers had their hands out for FF money.
This is the sad state of affairs today, optics are more important than substance.
That’s why IPCC can claim 2500 scientists without people questioning the number, despite the fact that, as I understand it, a fraction of the number actually write the report.
People today are window shoppers, they want nicely bundled sloganeering, and don’t have time for in depth analysis.
Our betters in the global eco-sci elite know that, and, sadly, prey on that.
Spearheaded by Lindzen? Why didn’t he sign it?
I’m still curious about how all these policy statements come about. Does someone contact the APS and these other organizations and ask them to publish an opinion? (If so, who?) Or it is just business as usual for them to come up with position statements on a range of issues?
Re: Roger Cohen signatory – One would hope that physicists would be interested in the scientific issues rather than the presentational ones.
wobble (16:12:51) :
“It really could snowball – just like companies which dropped Arthur Andersen as their auditor after the Enron scandal.”
And then Arthur Anderson changed their name to Accenture and is still very much alive and living.
“Betters”?
Since Climategate they are clearly not our “betters” – now they ARE “bitterer” though, for sure! ;))
Unfortunately, no amount of fact will sway the political and religious zeal to ram this green agenda where the sun don’t shine. The AGW cult never was interested in facts. Why should we be surprised that facts don’t make a difference now? This is strictly about power and political momentum. Our only hope is to retreive sanity from the trash bin in 2012. Even then, It will take decades to recover.
How about “Lindzen and others ask APS to put its policy statement on ice due to Climategate”
I agree. The title was slightly discombobulated.
Ya,,,, but,,,
Did Prof.’s Austin, Lewis, Happer, Gould and Cohen check this out with Charles Johnson and his littlegreenfootballs experts first,,,, this action just could end up with Austin all being baned from Charles bolg.
Luc re: put someone or something on ice
For “realist” climate experts see ICECAP.us, especially Experts
e.g. see ICECAP.us for MIT Prof. Richard Lindzen with links, including to the Wall Street Journal: The Climate Science Isn’t Settled “Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”
For such “second opinions”, see also Climate Change Reconsidered
Richard Wakefield (16:08:33) :
“Having someone from ExxonMobil is a mistake. The Alarmists will have a field day with that. Sorry, guys but all you in the FF industry are going to have to keep distance from the rest of us who have nothing to do with the FF industry.”
I disagree. The only reason that there is a FF industry is because it is absolutely necessary. Are there any alarmists out there who do not use anything derived from fossil fuels? How many of them walked to Jokenhagen?
I think the only way to get around this, is to introduce a new organization and pull away as much members as possible from APS.
A total boycott will make them change their mind.
We all know this about much more than taxing carbon emissions.
This is about our future and our freedom.
We really need tougher measures to beat this pack of cheats and liars.