Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate

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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/The_three_monkeys.png

Image from Wikimedia

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

About these ads

86 thoughts on “Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate

  1. ” 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 !

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. “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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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” ?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. That e-mail reads as though they snipped sections from their “14 proxies” which supported their opinion then pasted them all together to fabricate a chart.

    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.

  15. 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?

  16. Re: Roger Cohen signatory – One would hope that physicists would be interested in the scientific issues rather than the presentational ones.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. How about “Lindzen and others ask APS to put its policy statement on ice due to Climategate”

    I agree. The title was slightly discombobulated.

  20. 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.

  21. Luc re: put someone or something on ice

    2. Fig. to postpone acting on someone or something. I know he keeps pestering you for an answer, but we’ll just have to put him on ice until we have more facts to go on. Let’s put this project on ice till we find out how well it’s financed.

    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

  22. 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?

  23. 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.

  24. (rant on)
    This whole thing just makes me sick.
    The self righteous environmentalists, and not a work about real tangible pollution in years.
    We have mercury, farm runoff (nitrate, phosphates, insecticides, etc), sulphates, hormones in our water, and on and on and on
    The EPA has not done squat.
    Now they are telling us that CO2 is a poison.

    All the money we have wasted on this crap and now they have the nerve to say our breath is pollution, while not doing one dang thing about real pollution.

    And do not even have the moral honesty to say there’s not one thing we can do about it anyway.

    Claiming they want to save the planet.
    Not one word about all the real pollution, all the real things we can fix.
    What a bunch of lying, immoral, worthless hypocrite excuses for life.
    (rant off)

  25. Which fraction did they contact ? Even the most respected emeriti probably couldn’t sway the APS , given how deep in the tank they have shown themselves to be recently . Face it , AGW has becomr the cause de jour , and that’s where the glory and funding lies . On the other hand , I wish Lindzen et al the best of luck . Sorry for my cynicism .

  26. 1- The title of the post is grossly misleading. The authors of the statement are merely refering to a Richard Lindzen article in Wall Street Journal. Richard Lindzen’s name is not among the signatories of the statement. [NOTE: It has been changed, it was my mistake - Anthony]

    2- 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.

    There is certainly no moral or, to my knowledge, legal impediment to using a mock version of APS logo. Many corporate logos have suffered that fate in protests. One of the greatest T-shirt messages I’ve seen was “Enjoy Cocaine written in the colour and style of Enjoy Coca Cola. :D

  27. You science guys are in the same scenerio as the politicians are, as per the manner of attack, the optics and narrative. You cannot be nice, you cannot be fair, you have to grab them by the groin. I am Canadian. This foucking country is full of bleeding hearts but that’s not me and like you I am swimming upstream. It’s “Chicago” out there, and you guys are worried if someone’s “oil” association is listed as a member of our team. We need every able bodied sane person available in this strugle.

    Just an opinion

  28. Keith Minto (16:05:26)
    The petitioners meaning of including their total professional time vs. CG being the greatest fraud gravity seems quite clear. However, IMO, this is one of the greatest frauds of all time. It matches the hijacking of Aristotle’s philosophies by the Church;

    Ack (16:08:04)
    Some result will come from the CCCC immediately and, whatever it is will definitely cost the world’s citizens catastrophically. On the other hand the chances of CO2 us dying “…from CO2 poisoning first.” – not on this planet. If you want try Venus, but I’m betting you’ll burn up before you get a chance.

    Richard Wakefield (16:08:33) :
    “Having someone from ExxonMobil is a mistake.”
    Those challenging AGW alarmism represent the entire spectrum of parties. I thought XOM had completely jumped ship to the AGW side. Realistically, they are playing both sides. The more we can gain public support from groups (or split them) from the AGW side the better. That will give us a chance to more publicly discredit the “Consensus” AGW ploy.
    XOM, and other FF companies have been producing much of the “green” advertising over the last year, in self defense. Having them publicly on both sides, as well as academics and researchers, will necessarily focus attention to the science – game winner. It will raise the public’s curiousity, if it is doesn’t drive them away – but I believe that the impending bankrupting price-tag for “green” (low/intermittant) alternatives will keep hold of their interest.

  29. “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:”

    Bwahahahaha! That one is so much better! Their old one has been sullied anyway by their blind adherence to AGW pseudo-science.

    imapopulist (16:13:14) :

    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

    Huh? Who cares what the knuckle-dragging AGW/CC morons “seize upon”? Of course they are going to use their usual ad hom attacks. They don’t have science on their side so they have to resort to logical fallacies to try to support their arguments. Nobody but the most ardent Kool-Aid -sloshed AGW faithful are taken in by them.

  30. Keith Minto

    >> And then Arthur Anderson changed their name to Accenture and is still very much alive and living.

    No they did not. Accenture was the name chosen by Andersen Consulting to distance themselves from the Andersen brand after the demise of Arthur Ansersen.

  31. Why don’t we ask the most brilliant mind of all times, the theoretical physisist, Professor Stephen W. Hawking concerning the crap math when it comes to co2’s ability to heat the atmosphere?

  32. There is a reason why the extractive industries hire the best geoscientists (including geophysicists) . In fact , industry tends to hire the best scientists in most fields . The rest usually wind up either working for the government or in academics . At least until they can score a job in the field .

  33. The main reason I cancelled my membership with APS was their position on AGW. There just isn’t enough data…and to discount the influence (output fluctuations) of the sun…is just ignorant. I do not disagree that human impacts are cause local and in some cases regional temperatures (clearcutting/urban heat islands, etc.). I do not disagree that humans have increased CO2 levels…but water vapor hold heat better than CO2. Lets ban boiling water for pasta instead.

    Of course change all vehicles over to hydrogen would cause a huge increase in water vapor…..hmmm.

  34. Isn’t it appropriate for an oil company person to criticize the oil company people in the CRU? http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Oh, yeah, they’ve made that unavailable.

    “This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).”

  35. Truth (16:21:04) :

    Obama has listed CO2 as a threat to society to get around Congress and the Senate.

    Any action attempted by this EPA on this “finding” will “find” itself in Federal Court. For many years. In fact the EPA climate personnel will be found closely allied with the corrupted CRU/GISS personnel causing heads to roll in DC.

  36. Bruce Cobb. Good points. I agree. Since when did holding a real job disqualify someone from appealing for sanity? ….fm

  37. Robuk (16:21:46):

    One of the most telling statements would seem to be:

    “- I’m still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis involves counting from 1 to 14!”

    All those years of rigging the peer review process must have paid off.

    For a take on the use of predictive models in a different context (animal disease), have a look at this paper published by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (I did post this elsewhere, but it is probably of much more relevance here):

    http://www.oie.int/boutique/index.php?page=ficprod&id_prec=96&id_produit=293&lang=en&fichrech=1

    This is an account of scientific opportunism and the misuse of mathematical models in pursuit of political ends.

    Any of that sound familiar?

  38. AdderW (17:11:03) :
    Why don’t we ask the most brilliant mind of all times, the theoretical physisist, Professor Stephen W. Hawking concerning the crap math when it comes to co2’s ability to heat the atmosphere?

    Good idea!

  39. Although my entire professional career was more closely related to Electrical Engineering than to physics, my formal education is in physics. I used to be proud to call myself a “physicist”. When the APS insulted Lord Monckton with its rude treatment of a paper a subdivision of the APS asked Monckton write, my “pride” started to dwindle. When the APS was asked to modify its statement about AGW and declined to do so, whatever pride I had disappeared. The letter of Dr. Austin, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Happer, Dr. Gould, and Dr. Cohen resuscitated some of my pride. Please drop these gentlemen an E-mail to let them know they are appreciated and not alone in this fight.

  40. I quit APS a decade ago because it seemed to me that they had very biased views. Almost sorry I did then, because it means I can’t quit now!

  41. Indiana Bones (17:44:52)

    “In fact the EPA climate personnel will be found closely allied with the corrupted CRU/GISS personnel causing heads to roll in DC.”

    Yep, they just pushed the self-destruct.

  42. David Harrington (17:10:34)
    From Wiki,
    The link is there….

    Andersen Worldwide Société Coopérative (AWSC) was a Swiss-based entity which managed the global offices of accounting firm Arthur Andersen. It was also the parent corporation of Andersen Consulting (now called Accenture) before its split in 2000.

  43. Keith Minto (16:39:46) :

    “”And then Arthur Anderson changed their name to Accenture and is still very much alive and living.””

    You’re dead wrong. Accenture was Andersen Consulting the consulting firm.

    The auditing firm was Arthur Andersen, and they are dead. Did you even do 10 seconds of research before sticking your foot in your mouth?????

  44. AdderW (17:11:03) :
    Why don’t we ask the most brilliant mind of all times, the theoretical physisist, Professor Stephen W. Hawking concerning the crap math when it comes to co2’s ability to heat the atmosphere?

    That might not be a good idea as Hawking has his own math credablity problems.

  45. Indiana Bones (17:44:52)

    “In fact the EPA climate personnel will be found closely allied with the corrupted CRU/GISS personnel causing heads to roll in DC.”

    Kinda depends on what court hears the case though. Then come the appeals, and finally the Supreme Court. In the meantime, I wouldn’t hold my breath about the courts stopping the EPA while it works its way through the appeals process.

    Assuming this works it way as fast as the last CO2 case (where the Supreme Court agreed that the EPA has the authority to what it just did), we have at least until the end of Obama’s first term.

    Don’t get me wrong – I really hope this works – I’m just trying to inject a little realism into the discussion.

  46. Keith Minto (19:12:38) :

    “”The link is there….””

    Give it up, Keith. They were in court AGAINST each other battling over the name “Andersen.” They were different entities, and now Arthur Andersen is gone.

  47. Anderson CPA’s were famous for being the auditors of Enron. Enron was famous for fraud in addition to starting the global warming gas legislation. anderson consulting was somewhat separate and did the IT work for Enron and was audited by anderson CPA’s. When you take the CPA exam, it is followed by an ethics exam and it reeked of conflict of interest. The current Climate data mess is equal in confluict of interest. Peers review their own work and as a fraternity co-author research together.

  48. ‘Climategate’ and Public Opinion…….. The media damage control continued on NPR today
    See the list of speakers
    Juliet Eilperin, environmental reporter at The Washington Post.

    Michael Mann, director of the Earth Systems Science Center and a professor in the department of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University.

    Carroll Doherty, associate editorial director at the Pew Research Center for People and the Press.
    Listen if you wish.

    http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/12/climategate-and-public-opinion?autostart=true

  49. Richard Lindzen article, Climate Science Isn’t Settled; in the WSJ, Dec 1, had an important subtitle, “Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted”. I thought that was a significant qualifier meaning, “the science isn’t settled enough to confidently predict catastrophe.”

    Unfortunately, neither the current version of the WSJ nor the Open_Letter version of it has the subtitle. Without such qualifier, it becomes perfectly legitimate for the Real Climate blog to claim that Climate Science is of course not fully settled like most other scientific disciplines.

    I have already written to Roger Cohen of the Open_Letter website to remind him of the missing qualifier, but its worth mentioning it here too. Below are two links; the Lindzen article as it is on the WSJ now, and a version with the subttile. Cheers.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4515&linkbox=true&position=6

  50. I don’t like the insinuation that an industry scientist is “bad”, but a Government or Academia scientist is “good”. Each individual has their own biases and paradigms — the core of Climategate is the forcing of the data to support the Government’s need for a “crisis” to secure funding for themselves and academia. Without the “crisis” of “unprecedented” warming leading to reverberating feedback mechanisms and “catastrophe” — the ongoing scholarly discussion of climate would be debating the role of CO2, resiting weather stations, and trying to model the potential effects of solar minimum. Thank you Exxon for not going GE/BP and inventing cap and trade so you too could profit from this false crisis.

  51. Smokey, I’m refering to having specific people connected to and paid by the FF industry trying to influence a science organization to change its policy. The alarmists will just blow it out of proportion and claim the entire skeptical movement is paid for by Exxon. Which we are not but that won’t stop the alarmists from lying, which they do already, but no need to give them any more ammo that doesn’t really exist. Yeah, I know you alarmists are reading this too.

  52. To ccallan@princeton.edu

    The whole world is watching you, not just physicists.

    Has the physics community verified the climate models? If so, I haven’t seen it.

    Please, all physicists, make your voice heard. If all of the physicists say it is so, then who am I ?

    All physicists, speak up!

    Thanks,
    EJ

  53. There are some scientists that I respect a lot (such as Richard Lindzen) but what are scientists as a group? Rent seeking bureaucrats. Blackmailers. Their motto:

    GIVE US MORE MONEY OR THE EARTH GETS IT

  54. I know I’m late to this party, but I can’t resist referencing the old ant on a log analogy.

    The log, “climate” is doing its thing. The ants “us” think we can control it or are responsible for it.

    We even think we know how it works, and can “model” it to conform to our wishes. Before you know it we hit a rock or a natural swell. Well, the log survived, so the “model” says we must recant our inappropriate behavior that “caused” the problem.

    Of course the reference point is a “model”. The “model” has never been fact checked against, unmodified, objective data, or at least proven that it can accurately project forwards, as well as skillfully backcast answers.

    So, we guilt-ridden ants continue on our log, comforted by our backcasting models that can’t predict the next rock or natural swell, but believing that we should now pay through our nose for this guilt, and transfer our treasure around the log to help the “agents” (AG) who say they represent the interests of the other ants on our log.

    Gosh, don’t we all feel better on our log?

    What’s the next rock or unexpected swell going to do to the log? Well let’s ask the “model”???

  55. AdderW (17:11:03) : “Why don’t we ask the most brilliant mind of all times, the theoretical physisist, Professor Stephen W. Hawking concerning the crap math when it comes to co2’s ability to heat the atmosphere?”

    Nick Stokes (18:39:56) : “Good idea!”

    A good idea in that you have provided a “Perry Mason Moment,” but that is about all.

    But beyond that, you have shown that even the words from one of the greatest physicists the world has ever known, can be flawed.

    Comparing Earth’s future….to Venus….is absurd in the highest degree.

    So… what is your point, Nick?? Are you trying to cite one of the world’s great anomalous intellects, on your side for your cause??

    Point taken. But you must stop short on reason when you equate his “Venus” prediction with reality.

    CAGW is one thing [but many of us do not buy it because the "A" in CAGW has only been around *in force* for the past 150 years]….but Venus…is quite another.

    So you are saying that one of the greatest minds in civilization, that, regardless of his brilliance, when he makes an outrageous, outlandish, and non-physical claim of Earth will become Venus…that such validates the CAGW claims???

    Or are you just having fun here??

    Regardless, do not misrepresent what is taking place here. There are people that are concerned for CAGW [like you].

    There is at least one of the world’s top intellects saying that we will become like Venus….and getting quoted and re-quoted all over the planet for saying so.

    Then there are the rest of us…

    It is ludicrous to think that our opportunistic homo sapiens, after climbing from trees a few score thousand years ago, are the dominant forcing agent of the planet, in light of the fact that the planet has catastrophically warmed and cooled a gazillion times over the eons.

    At worst, AGW is real [it is most likely a myth however].

    At best, the world is varying, like it always does.

    At the absurd: The world might turn to Venus.

    And monkeys might fly out of my arse.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  56. Currently on the APS frontpage:

    ———————————
    Unsolicited Climate Change Email
    To APS Members
    On Thursday and Friday, December 3 and 4, a number of APS members received email messages from Bob Austin, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, and Roger Cohen regarding Climate Change.
    Please be assured that these were not official APS messages, nor were they sent with APS knowledge or approval.
    A number of our members have complained about this intrusion. We are continuing to investigate how the senders obtained APS member email addresses.
    If you have additional questions, please contact us via webmaster@aps.org.
    Best regards,
    Cherry Murray
    APS President
    Kate Kirby
    APS Executive Officer

    —————————————————-

    As others have noted, some of the wording and details of this letter are not helpful. Also would not be helpful if they ‘spammed’ APS members to send it out. Makes it all look very desperate.

  57. Sorry, an attachement if you will allow…

    And, by-the-way, what happens when we reach a falls?

    Only the model knows…

  58. The APS, like many other professional bodies, has forgotten that science isn’t about consensus, or chasing the next research dollar, it is about finding the truth.

    There are so many holes in the ‘standard’ theories of the different disciplines in physics that a fresh look needs to be taken and scepticism, honesty and observational skills need to be reinstated as the driving force.

    Politics and consensus science are poor bed-fellows, lets hope the open letter to the APS membership sparks a return to integrity. The Climategate debacle is a good example of what happens when this is lost.

  59. “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud…”

    This press release was clearly written in a hurry. Climategate refers to the release of emails and other documents. Are the professors claiming that the release of the emails is a scientifc fraud?

    More haste, less speed.

  60. Keith Minto

    From Wiki,
    The link is there….

    Unsurprisingly Wikipedia is also incorrect. Andersen Consulting split from Arthur Andersen in 1989.

  61. Not very convincing, are they?

    Austin does research on DNA structure,
    Happer works on spin-polarized atoms,
    Lewis is now retired and used to work (as long as I remember) on nuclear physics,
    the last guy, well you know.

    So that makes 4 people, out of 46,000 members, which never worked on this topic in their entire scientific career… As I said, not very convincing!

  62. “Austin does research on DNA structure,
    Happer works on spin-polarized atoms,
    Lewis is now retired and used to work (as long as I remember) on nuclear physics”

    So, proper scientists then?

  63. Nick Stokes (18:39:56) :

    AdderW (17:11:03) :
    Why don’t we ask the most brilliant mind of all times, the theoretical physisist, Professor Stephen W. Hawking concerning the crap math when it comes to co2’s ability to heat the atmosphere?

    Good idea!

    To me, he just lost all credibility, what a dribbeling idiot!

  64. My comment is to the APS

    I changed my mind and did not attend the winter meeting of my own beloved AAPT last winter because I was embarassed with the way APS was sucking up to Al Gore and the pseudo science he represents. You turned our joint meeting into a pseudo science media circus.

    If APS is not willing to require the CAGW political movement to make proper use of scientific method, the method that we teach to our high school and college students as central to the progress of science, than you are causing great harm to the future of science for the questionable return of being politically correct.

    Your policy statement is harming the scientific and moral authority as well as the research interests of your members and needs to be revised or discarded.

  65. “AdderW (17:11:03) :
    Why don’t we ask the most brilliant mind of all times, the theoretical physisist, Professor Stephen W. Hawking concerning the crap math when it comes to co2’s ability to heat the atmospher”

    Because as Ed Begley said to Stuart Varney, you can only ask the opinion of climate scientists – “A physicist can tell you about Bosun’s but not about the climate.”

    If he was right about Will Happer, then he must be right about Hawkins also.

  66. I’m a Fellow of the APS. I signed the email asking for a re-consideration of the society’s statement. I don’t have the logo handy, or I would put it on this email.

  67. “Physicists are not expected to cheat.” No one is expected to cheat. Physicists are not the Saints and they are prone to cheating and do cheat no less than anyone else. The level of possibility for cheating by any professional is defined by the level of the social corruption. In the Soviet Union scientific cheating was a widely spread phenomenon including physics. In particular, USSR’s science cheaters declared the genetics and computer sciences as the “whores, serving international imperialism”. In the Nazi Germany they disregarded“jewish science”. Well, it seems that we have established a new model here in the democratic “first world” countries: 1. government controlled funding of science and 2. squeezing major fraction of scientific research into the educational environment (universities) in average known to be unequipped to perform scientific research and full of petty politics. Only in the US the number of graduate schools required to conduct research is near 2500 with the faculty fighting for relatively small funding pie. In average, they will do anything to win the funding. There are more than 20,000 PhD physicists in the US, all of them in their proposals “prove” that the research they propose is of the Universe importance. Perhaps, the statement of “few bad scientists” and majority of honest scientists is an unfounded wish. After all, what is the difference between “analyzing” the data in Mann’s style and fantacizing the “Greater Impact” of your proposed research.

  68. Rob Vermeulen (00:14:32) :

    “Not very convincing, are they?

    Austin does research on DNA structure,
    Happer works on spin-polarized atoms,
    Lewis is now retired and used to work (as long as I remember) on nuclear physics,
    the last guy, well you know”

    But I’m sure you would endorse the opinion of Stephen Hawking:-
    Works on theoretical physics BUT supports CAGW.

  69. At the APS website I see in bold blue type: “APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement.” It would appear that they recognize current the controversy but strenuously deny that it has any impact on the real ground truth in this case.

    As long as this degree of support remains in the general scientific community, I believe it will be hard for skeptics of the putative Carbon Dioxide Crisis to have their views taken seriously by the world at large.

    I do not use the term “Climate Change” because I think it makes no sense to argue that the climate has not changed. That is not the real issue at stake here.

  70. Spector (09:19:50) :

    “At the APS website I see in bold blue type: “APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement.” It would appear that they recognize current the controversy …”

    No they don’t. That rejection occurred over a week before Climategate.

  71. OK Roger, I took the website at face value. As long as all the leading scientific organizations continue to say that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a dangerous threat to our environment and continued survival, (The Carbon Dioxide Crisis aka Climate Change) the President, Congress, the EPA, and the Supreme Court cannot be faulted for attempting to avert this putative looming danger with draconian measures.

  72. Spector (20:27:52) :

    “OK Roger, I took the website at face value. As long as all the leading scientific organizations continue to say that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a dangerous threat to our environment and continued survival, (The Carbon Dioxide Crisis aka Climate Change) the President, Congress, the EPA, and the Supreme Court cannot be faulted for attempting to avert this putative looming danger with draconian measures.”

    It will be very helpful if/when these organizations start backing away from their prior endorsements.

    =========
    Here’s an analogy that our side can use to counter the claim of consensus scientific endorsement: 25-some years ago, didn’t “science” endorse the alarmist myth of heterosexual transmission of AIDS? Wasn’t dissent considered an outrage? Weren’t we all at risk? The answers are Yes, Yes, and No. But somehow this embarrassment has fallen into the memory hole, probably because the MSM was fully complicit in it and wants to let that dog lie.

    I think this analogy is a very powerful counter, because it shows how “science” can be hijacked and/or intimidated by fervent and fashionable (progressive) activist groups.

    It also illustrates that many fence-sitters will keep quiet because they approve of a crusade’s ancillary accomplishments. In the case of AIDS alarmism, many middle-of-the-roaders approved of the encouragement of condom use. In the case of CAWG, many luke-warmers like the idea of decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, encouraging the use of public transit and more insulation, making a symbolic gesture of respect to mother earth, etc. This silence also contributes to the illysion of a consensus.

  73. PS: I’m sure science didn’t endorse AIDS alarmism as much as it has endorsed AGW. That needs to be researched. Fumento’s book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS,” probably could give some idea. Apparently nearly all the most relevant scientific experts, pubic health officials worldwide, endorsed the myth, although there was no conspiracy to do so. Here’s a link to the book (which I haven’t read) on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Heterosexual-AIDS-Distorted-Partisan/dp/0895267292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260349641&sr=1-1

  74. This story was just covered on Fox News (Bret Baier) with a sympathetic tone and listing the credentials of the folks on the dissenting list.

    Nice to see them picking up on it!

  75. I believe these scientific organizations should have reality of their endorsements challenged to make sure they can show that they are based on known fact, not rubber-stamp echoes the IPCC in the name of doing something good for the environment.

    If this whole science were eventually proved to be invalid, it is remotely conceivable that these organizations might even be held legally responsible for a portion of the resulting social damage.

  76. Interesting discussion.
    Lindzen is one of the most respected scientists critical of AGW.
    Since many of the posters emphasise that he is an MIT atmospherics professor, presumably because of the credibility that gives him, they may want to consider the opinions of Prof. Kerry Emanuel and Prof. Ron Prinn also in Prof. Lindzen’s department at MIT. See this recent debate on the effect of the release of the private emails from CRU at MIT (mitworld.mit.edu/video/730 ).

    As for the APS statement flap, the proposed change in the statement was categorically opposite the original. A valid debate would be whether the executive committee should be issuing statements on behalf of the membership at all and request the retraction of the statement. But to suggest keeping the statement but completely changing it’s content is a bit disingenuous. In addition, using lists of members emails in the way that was done here without going through APS itself is a violation of the terms of membership.

    And finally, a point of physics to Papa Swamp, former APS member. Since he is presumably a physicist with an understanding of basic chemistry, he certainly knows the the products of burning hydrocarbons are CO2 and H20 (and CO and some other minor products depending on incomplete burn and additives). Note that the hydrogen is all in the water. No more H20 is produced per unit energy content release burning H2 than gasoline (approximately of course, there are life cycle issues and completeness and efficiency[effective temperature] of burn to consider). What makes gasoline so good is the number of hydrogen bonds per unit volume it has. H2 has a big problem in this regard.

Comments are closed.