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.
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.
‘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
Did APS ever actually ask their membership which way to jump?
DaveE.
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
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.
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.
Interesting discussion on Iain Dales blog re the Global cooling scare in the ’70s.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6214838&postID=8613449528863964741
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
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
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”???
Seriously, ExxonMobil: Who thought that would help?
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
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.
Sorry, an attachement if you will allow…
And, by-the-way, what happens when we reach a falls?
Only the model knows…
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.
“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.
Keith Minto
From Wiki,
The link is there….
Unsurprisingly Wikipedia is also incorrect. Andersen Consulting split from Arthur Andersen in 1989.
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!
“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?
To me, he just lost all credibility, what a dribbeling idiot!
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.