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.
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.
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.
Here is a good story on this topic – well done CBS!
Physicists stick to warming claim post-Climategate
http://www.ktva.com/ci_13951345
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
In my last message read “echoes of the IPCC” for “echoes the IPCC”
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.