APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation

Below is the press release (on the web here) from the American Physical Society, responding to the resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday, October 8th. APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I’ve gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in the document below. – Anthony

October 12, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson

Press Secretary

APS Physics

529 14th  St. NW, Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20045-2065

Phone: 202-662-8702

Fax: 202-662-8711

tjohnson@aps.org

APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.

In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists,  APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements.

We know that the existing 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change was developed literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee had signed off on a more moderate Statement.

The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.

We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html

…delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members,  including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels. Driven largely by the ClimateGate revelations, the Petition asks that the Society conduct an independent study and assessment.

As for democratic membership participation in matters of science, consider the reaction to a grass roots outpouring of APS member opinion on the 2007 APS Statement http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/apscouncilors.cfm .  “[APS Councilor] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically unsound statements.”   Evidently physicists should be excluded from inputting on a question of physics; only “physics monks” are entitled to do so ex cathedra .

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false.  Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding.

The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading.  Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame.  The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions .  Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS 2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while  under consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP.  The position had been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.

Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies such as the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor’s office that the APS will continue to support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of taxpayer dollars into research that must support the alarmist credo. APS has been silent on the documented practice by some climate scientists aimed at preventing opposing research from being published.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

  • Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
  • Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and

This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.

  • The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “dwell time.”  If it is the conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the statement is wrong – by a lot..  The IPCC’s Bern carbon cycle model http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html gets a 16 year half life.  If it is the time for the last molecule to get picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless.  At the very least, the statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.  However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

This is much better than the 2007 APS Statement itself.  However, the phrase “climate disruptions” is noteworthy because it is the new buzzword recently introduced by Science Advisor John Holdren http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-is-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/ , evidently enabling advocates to assign any unusual weather event to human causes.  It is curious that that the APS press release happens to echo this new phrase.

In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

What we have here is a bait and switch.  No one is saying that the greenhouse effect itself is a scam. This passage seeks to transfer the ‘scam’ charge from its real target to the trivial.  The fraud/scam is to be found in the continual drumbeat that the science is settled; that the effects will be catastrophic; that it requires draconian economic sacrifices to avoid; and that mandates and subsidies for rent-seeking corporations are justified.

Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change.  After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue.  The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.

Never mind that the Panel on Public Affairs is chaired by an individual whose research funding stream (from BP) depends on continued global warming alarm.  And you have to keep your eye on the pea.  The dispute was not over the “significance” of the issue; it was over the alarmist nature of the statement. The addendum used more than five times the number of words to try to explain what the original statement meant.   Not a good sign that they got it right the first time.

Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

Never mind that the Topical Group was proposed in a petition organized by a group of five members that included Dr. Lewis.   Also, the Council has not yet approved a TG; therefore it is not in the process of being “organized.”  It is being considered.   No formal charter or bylaws have been set down. What we have here is the first attempt to co-opt the TG for PR purposes. This before it has even been approved by the APS Council.

Read the APS Climate Change Statement and Commentary:  http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.

APS should be very reluctant to draw public attention to this Statement, with its infamous phrase, “The evidence is incontrovertible,” despite the fact that nothing in science is ever incontrovertible.

About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.

Tawanda W. Johnson

Press Secretary

APS Physics

529 14th  St. NW, Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20045-2065

Phone: 202-662-8702

Fax: 202-662-8711

tjohnson@aps.org

=================================================

This page is available as a PDF here: APS Press Release Deconstruction

=================================================

Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum:

I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors. It relates to: “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming. Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average temperature by only about 1 deg. C. — if there were no other climate effects involved. However, these other effects, generally called “feedbacks,” can amplify or attenuate the primary radiation altering effect of additional CO2. The most prominent feedback is the “cloud-water vapor feedback,” which is very difficult to calculate or determine empirically. The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years”
The letter comes from APS? Sure? OMG

John

Thanks, APS, for letting all the members know about Hal’s resignation, and for a forum to post more of the disturbing details. I’m hoping your actions will break this issue into the MSM.

Ben G

Well if you ever wanted proof that politics was in charge of the science of AGW, then this statement from the APS demonstrates it perfectly.

Ken Hall

Are we witnessing the demise of the scientific method and its replacement by the financial method?
Sadly, it looks very much like it.

Jack

The APS doubles down.
What is clear is that these rent seeking idiots have no knowledge of the history of scientific controversies….in the vast majority of cases the lone individual has been proven to be right, and (please forgive the sarcastic quotes here) the “august”, “deliberative”, “body of reputable scientists” proven to be wrong.
At some point Anthony, a mere loss of status and public ridicule simply isn’t enough. What the APS management, Holdren, Hanson, Mann et. al. are doing crosses over into criminal enterprise.

This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.
Is it? At all relevant altitudes?

Tenuc

A very week response to the criticisms of the APS made in the Dr. Hal Lewis resignation letter.
This absurd statement caught my eye:-
In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
On most of the key pillars of the CAGW conjecture, most of the science is far from settled:-
The amount (if any) that the extra CO2 from use of fossil fuels increases temperature.
The size (if any) of the positive feed back from extra water vapour and other ‘forcing(s)’.
The role of clouds – ocean – aerosols – solar changes… e.t.c.
How a scientific body like the APS can be blind to the uncertainties in these basic climate mechanisms defies belief! I think Hal Lewis has every right to call it pseudo-science. The whole crumbling edifice of CAGW lies broken on the ground, but the true believers refuse to see it and still keep on repeating the same old discredited mantra.

Chris B

Most organisations are still drinking the Koolaid to either keep government money flowing, or to keep dues coming in.
An email exchange with a CAGW Aid group…….. thread is in reverse order.

[SNIP – as much as I’d like to publish this, it is a private email exchange not a public one. – Anthony]

jorgekafkazar

“Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.”
If so few APS members are involved in climate change research, why the hell is the APS issuing statements on it? It would seem the topic is almost as far from the APS’s purview as it could get.
Something is rotten in Denmark.

Adam

I would like to know how you know that statement was literally drawn up over lunch.

John Whitman

Is the resignation letter by Dr. Hal Lewis an example of the body of science policing itself?
Is this APS press release (in response to Dr. Lewis resignation letter) an example of the body of science policing itself?
Are the responses (to the APS press release) written by Dr. Hal Lewis and by current APS members Dr. Roger Cohen and Dr. Will Happer an example of the body of science policing itself?
Is WUWT providing a public forum to discuss Dr. Lewis’ resignation and its fallout an example of the body of science policing itself?
My Answer: All of the above are good examples of a scientific self-policing process . . . . finally.
John

Jimbo

“The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”
Then are the following in error or am I missing something?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Tom Wiita

I downloaded the pdf version of the above. The pdf version omits that the source of the comments is Dr.’s Cohen, Happer and Lewis, which is indicated in the above posting. I suggest that their names as sourced be added to the pdf, to make it more of a free-standing complete document.

pat

The scientific evidence of AGW is very questionable, and becoming more so, not less. Most telling is that it cannot be duplicated in a laboratory. Troubling, is the evidence for a continuous temperature run up, predicated for the computer models, is very sketchy, with the AGW proponents often concealing real thermometer readings in favor of altered figures of extremely dubious evidential value. The increase in winter arctic ice extent for the last three years, the cooling of surface oceanic temperatures since 2002, and the divergence between satellite temperature reading as compared to the ground readings released by various governmental agencies should give any reasonable scientist pause.

Dennis Wingo

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding.
Did anyone else notice that they ignored the specific charge from Dr. Lewis that the bylaws of the organization were violated by ignoring the petition from the 200+ members?
As for the rest of it, maybe physicists will start zeroing in on the effects of CO2 from a physics standpoint, using the well known equations on the subject and maybe, just maybe, blow a hole in the entire AGW theory.

R. Shearer

This is the usual BS from APS and the American Chemical Society (ACS) behaves no differently. The leadership of each of these “societies” has been largely taken over by propagandists.

sharper00

@jorgekafkazar
“If so few APS members are involved in climate change research, why the hell is the APS issuing statements on it? It would seem the topic is almost as far from the APS’s purview as it could get.”
Maybe they’re commenting on it because it’s an important scientific issue with enormous implications.
Could you provide some figures for what constitutes the appropriate climate science involvement between “What the hell does this have to do with them anyway?” and “Well they would say that wouldn’t they?”
You would think if even a random selection of the charges leveled against climate science (for example that the greenhouse effect just doesn’t exist) that APS members would have the skillset to detect such a thing. Instead, like practically every other scientific organisation, they accept the reality of human driven climate change.
Instead it’s become necessary to explain why the vast majority of the scientific community support something that isn’t true, the explanation naturally being a conspiracy theory.

Enneagram

“The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the BRAIN impairs reasoning for many years until compensated by fresh oxygen intake from the Blogsphere, specially from WUWT”

Chris B

Anthony,
Regarding snipping the “private” email, I suspected as much. Thank you for doing so. Is there a way running these sorts of things by the moderators before attempting to post?
For the curious, the private email was with a government funded aid organisation that could not give me a justifiable reason for why her organisation “believed” we were suffering, “The effects of climate change (cyclones, floods and crop failures etc)………
I had complained earlier about their pre-exploding-schoolchild-video support of 10:10.

Enneagram

I remember when in 1957 Russia launched the Sputnik. In the USA everyone called for a new education, this proves the change made was in the ideological sense.

From my point of view the APS’s attempt at face saving is just that and little more. They are of course just as entitled to their opinions as is Dr. Lewis his. While this letter may be the right thing to do, from the APS’s Public Relations prospective, It is less then convincing. I suspect the membership and a large proportion of the public, will see through the spin and obscuration.
In Lewis’ letter he suggested the APS was acting more from self interest, of at least some of its prominent members, and not from a strictly scientific view. On that charge the APS has not successfully defended.

If a significant number of the membership doesn’t chime in, then the responder will have benefitted by the letter of resignation in that he will learn that the large majority are in support of the APS position. Also, having not actually responded to the main issue of the letter – Climategate and what it revealed about the top resesearchers – they were scammers regardless of several coats of whitewash- it also means they accept the lower standards for scientific research. How can you say that the science is incontrovertible especially when those who put it together had to resort to faulty and devious methods and behaviours to arrive at the “theory”. Woe is science for a generation at least.

Jeff L

What else would you expect???
To come out & say “Yep, Hal Lewis is right on all accounts.”
They have major face-saving to do & that is what this press release represent – nothing more, nothing less.

Stephen Brown

It would appear that there’s a little squirming going on in the APS Boardroom!

Pascvaks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
_________________________________
Sending a lady, the Press Secretary, to do the “President’s” duty: to respond ‘in kind’. This says more about the APS than anything anyone has ever said about this professional organization, and likely ever will say. Tawanda, you really might want to pass the word to the other staff that the people you work for are cowards and will leave you hanging out to dry if they think it’s for the good of their own backsides.

Theo Goodwin

The Petition is the key. The Petition was submitted years ago and APS is just now getting around to considering it. APS’s failure to consider the Petition is the fact that must be explained first. After that, APS can explain how it intends to respond to the Petition now. Until those two matters are settled, there is no point in taking up any other.

sharper00

@Pascvaks
“Sending a lady, the Press Secretary, to do the “President’s” duty: to respond ‘in kind’. This says more about the APS than anything anyone has ever said about this professional organization”
I’m not sure what the sex of the person has to do with anything. If the APS felt a woman was inadequate to represent their views that certainly would say something about the organisation.
As for your other point, you’re reading a press release thus the contact details given are for the press officer. You know, the person whose job it is to manage the organisations communication with the press.

Jon Salmi

To me, the use of the the term “settled science” by an official of the APS is more than a little scary as is the use of the current buzz words ‘climatic disruptions’. It appears that the managers of the APS are all about politics and are as ignorant of science and the scientific method as is the general public. But I trust the general public’s common sense more than I do that of the APS management.

Paul Deacon, Christchurch, New Zealand

This press release does more to discredit the APS than the original resignation letter. Extraordinary blindness on their part.

Bill H

Well this sheds a whole lot of light on the APS and its inner workings.. what motivation drives the science (or more precisely money flow).. and just what state the science community as a whole is in.
Scary indeed…..

Frank K.

“However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.”
Well – they made sure to use the new CAGW catchphrase “climatic disruptions”!
In the end, though, this kind of CYA political statement is all about preventing Climatic Ca$h Disruptions…

I believe I am developing a man-crush on Hal Lewis.

Bill H

Enneagram says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:29 am
“The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the BRAIN impairs reasoning for many years until compensated by fresh oxygen intake from the Blogsphere, specially from WUWT”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kudos Anthony!

Theo Goodwin says: October 13, 2010 at 11:46 am

The Petition is the key. The Petition was submitted years ago and APS is just now getting around to considering it. APS’s failure to consider the Petition is the fact that must be explained first. After that, APS can explain how it intends to respond to the Petition now. Until those two matters are settled, there is no point in taking up any other.

Indeed. Already, IIRC, it appears that one-third of APS membership ie some 16,000 members, disagree with the official position.
There is only one way to avoid charges of conspiracy – or undo existing conspiracy to deceive / control. Open up the Petition.
As Einstein reminds us from beyond the grave, it only needs one flaw in the evidence to change “accepted” into “suspect”. As to “incontrovertible”, well, as Hal Lewis says in effect, that notion is obscene.

Mac the Knife

The American Physical Society announces the New Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to Anthropogenic Global Warming Research and anyone that dares to refute it.
1st Law Of Mo’Shun
“Every positive Anthropogenic Global Warming conclusion tends to remain in its ‘incontrovertable state’, regardless of the overwhelming body of independently verified evidence refuting it.”
This is a more general statement of the Mann and Jones et.al. Law of Nondisclosure Inertia.
2nd Law Of Mo’Shun
“F = m a : Funding = Malfeasance multiplied by Acceleration”
“The relationship between the funding for Anthropogenic Global Warming research is directly proportional to the positive (wink/nudge/nature trick/hide the decline) results confirming the hypothesis, multiplied by the accelerated declarations of impending disaster trumpeted in a complicit media.”
Note that funding and accelerated declarations of impending disasters by a complicit media are properly italicized, as these are vectors with a common sign or direction. Malfeasance is not, as it is a proportional physical property to AGW.
3rd Law Of Mo’Shun
“For every considered and data supported action refuting AGW, there is an irrational and considerably larger deceitful reaction aimed at castrating the authors of the original refutation.”
See Real Climate web site for current examples.
For further information on these Fund-A-Mental Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to the august dissenting members of the American Physical Society,
Contact:
APS Physics
529 14th  St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org

John Whitman

sharper00 says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:28 am
You would think if even a random selection of the charges leveled against climate science (for example that the greenhouse effect just doesn’t exist) that APS members would have the skillset to detect such a thing. Instead, like practically every other scientific organisation, they accept the reality of human driven climate change.
Instead it’s become necessary to explain why the vast majority of the scientific community support something that isn’t true, the explanation naturally being a conspiracy theory.

——————-
sharper00,
Here is the thing. Now that the body of science is publically starting to openly police itself in this Dr. Lewis vs. APS situation, you are critical of it. And, as I recall, you were (are) critically against the Cuccinelli legal actions against the UoV and Mann (& team).
Therefore, you do appear to be against anything critical of the consensus/settled science of AGW by CO2 whether by public processes of science slef-policing or external to science legal policing.
I think that makes you, by definition, biased by advocacy.
To use your own argument, you would think that in a random selection of your views there would be something critical of the consensus/settled science of AGW by CO2. Is there?
John

Cassandra King

Who are they trying to kid with this sorry excuse for a defence?
You might expect this kind of reply from a local government bureaucrat underling, waffle and misdirection and word fog but from the APS? Supposedly some of the brightest minds on the planet and they come up with a badly put together ill thought out letter rushed and frankly rubbish. Perhaps the APS dose indeed have something to hide if they can be panicked into writing what amounts to a real world and real time self indictment.
An August body like the APS would never need to issue such a statement if they had nothing to hide, the wording is stunningly poor and the blame shifting could have come from a college student and in fact if this is the accepted standard of the APS when responding to such damaging charges then they would have caused themselves less shame if they had just admitted guilt.
To anyone with half a brain this IS a simple admission of guilt.

Ken Hall

Perhaps the reason that so few members of the APS are outright AGW sceptics, and the reason why so many of them believe the IPCC’s findings is precisely because so few of them have actually looked closely at the climate “science”.
So many of them take on board the importance of the scientific method and adhere faithfully to it that they are simply unaware of the failure of a clique of “incestuous” climate scientists to adhere to the scientific method at all. They believe that the science is settled because they are unaware of how many scientists and publications have been threatened and bullied into subservience and outright compliance with an agenda.
We are now beginning to see, however, that all the extra money being poured into climate research is attracting some excellent and honest scientists who are now getting more balanced and sceptical articles published.
We really need a return to the full and faithful adherence to the scientific method of discovery, rather than the financial, or the bullying method.

Pascvaks

Ref – sharper00 says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:47 am
All we have is the Lewis letter to the President and the APS response to Lewis from the Press Secretary. That’s it. The lady is only doing her job ‘as directed’ and there’s nothing else to say about her. Link for APS OPA at –
http://www.aps.org/about/contact/staff.cfm?office=&initial=&dept=Office+of+Public+Affairs
What is left is the ‘black hole’ that is the APS and from which nothing but this excapes. We can surmise that the author of the response was a senior staffer, we can surmise that someone above him proofed it, and that someone above him blessed it, and that someone else faxed a copy to the Prez for the final OK. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and noting their public stand in support of AGW, let’s assume that the APS senior leadership are a bunch of idiots and the organization is not long for the real world of real physics and real science and real people; they do like to hide behind whatever’s handy, don’t they?

Mac the Knife

The American Physical Society announces the New Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to Anthropogenic Global Warming Research and anyone that dares to refute it.
1st Law Of Mo’Shun
“Every positive Anthropogenic Global Warming conclusion tends to remain in its ‘incontrovertable state’, regardless of the overwhelming body of independently verified evidence refuting it.”
This is a more general statement of the Mann and Jones et.al. Law of Nondisclosure Inertia.
2nd Law Of Mo’Shun
“F = m a : Funding = Malfeasance multiplied by Acceleration”
“The relationship between the funding for Anthropogenic Global Warming research is directly proportional to the positive (wink/nudge/nature trick/hide the decline) results confirming the hypothesis, multiplied by the accelerated declarations of impending disaster trumpeted in a complicit media.”
Note that funding and accelerated declarations of impending disasters by a complicit media are properly italicized, as these are vectors with a common sign or direction. Malfeasance is not, as it is a proportional physical property to AGW.
3rd Law Of Mo’Shun
“For every considered and data supported action refuting AGW, there is an irrational and considerably larger deceitful reaction aimed at castrating the authors of the original refutation.”
See Real Climate web site for current examples.
For further information on these Fund-A-Mental Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to the august dissenting members of the American Physical Society,
Contact:
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org

Jeff Mitchell

It is nice to have the ability to talk back. In the old days, it was much more difficult. The internet has really helped level the field.

Gator

I just dropped Ms Johnson a note expressing my deepset sympathies over the loss of their credibility.

Steve in SC

The monolith will break up as soon as the money dries up as it surely will.
November is not very far away. Act accordingly.

“and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon”
Carbon and carbon dioxide is as equal as chlorine gas and sodium chloride. Idiots.
I am waiting for physical explanation, that adding one molecule of CO2 to three molecules of CO2, mixed with other 10,000 molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and argon might cause “climatic disruptions”.
We live in times, when “government contracts become virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” (D. Eisenhower)

ZT

Next the APS will be playing the plagiarism card.

jason

Well any right thinking member of the APS should now know what they need to do.

The good Doctors pass over the questionable APS statement

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;

which I regard as another bait-and-switch and would reword thusly:

* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere. Undoubtedly human activity is one cause of this increase; however, it is unclear how large a proportion human activity represents, and probably it is only a very small proportion, since natural processes far exceed human emissions in strength. The fact that carbon dioxide is steadily increasing, somewhat in line with increasing human emissions, can also be explained by the inertia of the oceans in responding to global warming since the Little Ice Age. Carbon dioxide change can lag temperature change by up to 800 years

■Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming;
Joking, right?
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

It’s just totally disgusting. The first thing is that Callan, instead of answering himself, gave the task to his bodyguard who has no idea about science and who just wrote a meaningless and dishonest stream of intimidation. More comments of mine:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/10/aps-thinks-that-tawanda-may-teach.html
I am ashamed of Mr Callan.
REPLY:Thanks Luboš. Reading your post, for the record, I didn’t analyse anything in the APS statement, see the foreword. Also, I think your response is a bit over the top regarding the APS executive secretary. She’s probably just caught in the middle. – Anthony

simpleseekeraftertruth

The APS site contains a wealth of information that one would not normally consider the domain of the physicist when dealing with the APS. viz: Main > Policy & Advocacy > Archived Statements. There you will find this which you might consider at odds with their recent press release;
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
And this;
“Our nation’s complacency about the energy problem is dangerous. While the understandable result of currently abundant supplies of energy at low prices, such complacency is short-sighted and risky. Low-cost oil resources outside the Persian Gulf region are rapidly being depleted, increasing the likelihood of sudden disruptions in supply. Energy-related urban air pollution has become a world-wide threat to human health. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and aerosols are climbing; this will cause changes in temperature, precipitation, sea level, and weather patterns that may damage both human and natural systems.”
And This;
“Therefore, the Council of the American Physical Society urges the Administration and Congress to make a significant increase in Federal investment in energy research and pre-commercial development. Further, we urge the adoption of policies that promote efficiency and innovation throughout the energy system, including conservation and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels.”
Hal would appear to have made them change their tune.