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.
(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)
“and not a – word – about real tangible pollution in years”.
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 .
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. 😀
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
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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 .
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.
Exxon = kryptonite – DOA.
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).”
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.
Bruce Cobb. Good points. I agree. Since when did holding a real job disqualify someone from appealing for sanity? ….fm
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?
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?????
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.
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.
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.