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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” Roger says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:59 pm” “back of the envelope calculation”
For all interested this makes a few assumptions which many AGW people also do in pointing to simple physics.
1/ It is assumed radiation takes precedence over convective heat transfer and evaporation
Take a look at this article http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/Profiles/Graham_Farquhar/documents/271RodericketalPanreviewIGeogCompass2009_000.pdf
and also think how you would explain the following BOM pan evaporator data from Alice Springs airport- 11sep 2009, hrs sunshine nil, evaporation 8.4mm, rainfall 11.2mm, max temp 21C, min temp 19C,
2/ It is assumes that photons exist. It has been shown that particle like photon theory can not answer some experimental results for light but wave theory is applicable. No one has proved that photons exist for infra-red or microwave energy.
3/ It is assumed that Stefan-Boltzman equation applies in an atmosphere of gases (ie not in a vacuum) and at low temperature.
4/ It assumes that surfaces have no boundary layer which affects conditions at the surface. Any engineer working with heat transfer and fluid dynamics (eg drag on aerofoils) know that boundary layers exist.
Miskolczi is probably correct when he states a new look at physics is required.
cementafriend says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I can’t seem to get the link to work, keeps stopping. Just as well, I can only handle so much brain torture in a day, and I fear I’m pushing my limit today. I could be that I’ve 10 tabs open on my browser, too.
I’m just sad our friends Terry and Metzler didn’t come to play! They seemed so eager at first.
Until the alarmists PROVE Miskolczi theory is wrong, they have NOTHING.
Well Roy Spencer is hardly an alarmist and he doesn’t seem to rate Miskolczi’s theory.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
Jordan,
Some people have said to me: “there has been cooling in the upper stratosphere, surely that confirms the predicted pattern”. But it’s just not persuasive. Those observations don’t have a “hot spot” where there is supposed to be one.
But cooling of the stratosphere is specific to warming from an enhanced GHE whereas the “hot spot” is expected with warming from any source and doesen’t specifically indicate AGW. Therefore the former is surely a much better indicator of AGW than the latter.
Joel Shore:
Your post at October 15, 2010 at 5:24 pm is clear desperation.
There is no “God of the gaps” argument from me.
Two independent measurement systems each show the ‘hot spot’ has not happened.
And that is a direct refutation of a clear prediction of the AGW hypothesis.
There are no “gaps” in that unequivocal result.
Your long post only asserts that the measurements may be wrong. Well, sorry, but your assertion is a clear example of the “fraudulent science” deplored by Hal Lewis.
When measurements refute a hypothesis then the hypothesis is disproved (period).
And that refutation remains true unless and until the measurements are shown to be wrong.
Ifs, buts, and arm-waving do not cut it. Prove the measurements are wrong or admit that the AGW hypothesis is disproved. Assertions that the measurements may be wrong is a “God of the gaps” argument.
Richard
Andrew Adams:
At October 16, 2010 at 12:18 am you assert:
“But cooling of the stratosphere is specific to warming from an enhanced GHE whereas the “hot spot” is expected with warming from any source and doesen’t specifically indicate AGW. Therefore the former is surely a much better indicator of AGW than the latter.”
No!
Such an argument is another example of the “fraudulent science” that Hal Lewis deplores. Only one disproof of a hypothesis is sufficient: in real science you cannot choose which evidence to accept and which to ignore.
And the “warming from any source” assertion defeats itself. I addressed this above in an answer that I gave to Joel Shore at October 15, 2010 at 5:15 am
To save you finding it, the relevant part of my answer said:
“OK. I will buy that. It says that the ‘hot spot’ would be induced by any increase to forcing from a variety of causes including “wellmixed greenhouse gases” because “it results from the temperature profile in the tropical troposphere is expected to closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate.”
But the’hot spot’ is missing. As I said, the independent measurements from baloons and satelites both show it has not happened.
So, which do you want to assert:
1. As the IPCC explanation says, the absence of the ‘hot spot’ indicates there has been no increase to radiative forcing from “wellmixed greenhouse gases”?
Or
2. As the propoganda blog you quote says, the absence of the ‘hot spot’ indicates there has been no increase to radiative forcing from a “a variety of forcings” including “wellmixed greenhouse gases”?”
Richard
andrew adams says:
October 16, 2010 at 12:18 am
“But cooling of the stratosphere is specific to warming from an enhanced GHE whereas the “hot spot” is expected with warming from any source and doesen’t specifically indicate AGW. Therefore the former is surely a much better indicator of AGW than the latter.”
There seems to be a problem there too: there is no increasing cooling of the stratosphere since about 1995, while CO2 increased some 30 ppmv in that period. See the TLS channel trend by the RSS team at:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures
Ozone expert assessment 2010
New analyses of both satellite and radiosonde data give increased confidence in
changes in stratospheric temperatures between 1980 and 2009. The global-mean
lower stratosphere cooled by 1–2 K and the upper stratosphere cooled by 4–6 K between 1980 and 1995. There have been no significant long-term trends in global-mean lower stratospheric temperatures since about 1995. The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling did not occur linearly but was manifested as downward steps in temperature in the early 1980s and the early 1990s.
maksimovich says:
October 16, 2010 at 5:07 am
Ozone expert assessment 2010
New analyses of both satellite and radiosonde data give increased confidence in
changes in stratospheric temperatures between 1980 and 2009. The global-mean
lower stratosphere cooled by 1–2 K and the upper stratosphere cooled by 4–6 K between 1980 and 1995. There have been no significant long-term trends in global-mean lower stratospheric temperatures since about 1995. The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling did not occur linearly but was manifested as downward steps in temperature in the early 1980s and the early 1990s.
Quite strange. If the cooling was the result of increased CO2 levels, one would expect a decreasing trend similar to the slightly exponential increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, within natural variability. In this case there are two drops after sudden warming caused by two large volcanic eruptions, El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991). The temperature doesn’t move down inbetween or after the eruptions (even slightly up). Seems not CO2 related, but a disturbance by the volcanoes (chloride – ozone depletion?) which lasts longer than the aerosol warming caused by the same.
maksimovich says:
October 16, 2010 at 5:07 am
The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling did not occur linearly but was manifested as downward steps in temperature in the early 1980s and the early 1990s.
Quite strange. If the cooling was the result of increased CO2 levels, one would expect a decreasing trend similar to the slightly exponential increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, within natural variability. In this case there are two drops after sudden warming caused by two large volcanic eruptions, El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991). The temperature doesn’t move down inbetween or after the eruptions (even slightly up). Seems not CO2 related, but a disturbance by the volcanoes (chloride – ozone depletion?) which lasts longer than the aerosol warming caused by the same.
To: James Sexton. Sure. Just be aware that it is very simple. It’s purpose is to show more clearly what we mean by “CO2 lines are saturated.”
To: cementafriend. That part is OK. Most of the heat transfer at low altitudes is via convection which is lumped into the effective thermal conductivity. At high altitudes, radiation dominates. But you are right that much is left out, and one should not use this simple argument to make big AGW points.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Quite strange. If the cooling was the result of increased CO2 levels, one would expect a decreasing trend similar to the slightly exponential increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, within natural variability. In this case there are two drops after sudden warming caused by two large volcanic eruptions, El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991). The temperature doesn’t move down in between or after the eruptions (even slightly up). Seems not CO2 related, but a disturbance by the volcanoes (chloride – ozone depletion?) which lasts longer than the aerosol warming caused by the same.
The heterogeneous chemistry is in wmo 2003 chapter 4.
The assessment also states
The evolution of lower stratospheric temperature is influenced by a combination of
natural and human factors that has varied over time. Ozone decreases dominate the
lower stratospheric cooling since 1980. Major volcanic eruptions and solar activity have clear shorter-term effects. Models that consider all of these factors are able to reproduce this temperature time history.
Or to put it another way explanations are clearly in order.
Richard S Courtney says:
(1) It is not a clear prediction of the AGW hypothesis. It is a prediction of the current modeling of the atmosphere for any source of warming whatsoever.
(2) It sure is a God of the Gaps argument. Back in the 90s, AGW was disproved because the satellite record showed the troposphere was cooling. Then, in the early part of the 2000s, it was disproved because, although the satellite record no longer showed it was cooling, it still showed it wasn’t warming sufficiently. Then, later, it was disproved because, although the satellite record no longer disagreed (within uncertainties) with the surface observations on a global scale, there was still some discrepancy…highly dependent on which data set you looked at…when you considered only the tropics and the expected amplification there specifically for the multidecadal trends. So, the record clearly shows that as the data and analysis are better understood, the issues have been resolving themselves, so far completely in favor of the theory.
This may be your dream of how science works when you in the coal industry don’t like the results but it is a fantasy. There would be no theories if every discrepancy between measurements and theory immediately meant that the theory was disproved. This is exactly why the forces of anti-science can pounce on science that they don’t like…They can always find discrepancies or “missing links” or what-have-you. The scientific issues may be very different but the anti-scientific forces tend to all use the same techniques.
In the real world, scientific theories that have reached the status of theories have already passed numerous tests and it would be foolhardy in the extreme to abandon them every time there is some discrepancy with empirical data. What happens is scientists continue to ponder and try to resolve the discrepancies either with better data, better data analysis, modifications of the theory, or what-have-you….but it is an on-going process and new data, both in accord with and in apparent disagreement with the theory, are being presented all of the time. It is only once a sufficient number of discrepancies haven’t been able to be resolved…and usually also a better theory comes along…that the theory will be discarded.
Joel Shore says:
October 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Then, later, it was disproved because, although the satellite record no longer disagreed (within uncertainties) with the surface observations on a global scale, there was still some discrepancy…highly dependent on which data set you looked at…when you considered only the tropics and the expected amplification there specifically for the multidecadal trends. So, the record clearly shows that as the data and analysis are better understood, the issues have been resolving themselves, so far completely in favor of the theory.
Bold mine.
If one makes uncertainties large enough, everything agrees with everything. That is my position on these “issues resolving themselves”.
And to call “theory” what GCMs are is hubris, again in my opinion.
I have watched the models being pulled one side and another and different models grabbed to make points, according to what they want to refute and how big the errors should be to assert “agreement” with the recent data, but I have not seen a full set of predictions coming out of these new runs, from the same model for all the controversial points :
1) stasis in temperature,
2)relative humidity,
3) cloud cover,
4) ERBE data refuting positive feedback,
5) missing energy that is not the oceans,
6)hydrological predictions being no better than random ones (Koutsoyannis et al)
7) the hot spot
and most damning
8) the inability to predict the absolute temperatures so playing with anomalies instead
I get models a la cart. A theory is a full menu.
Joel Shore:
I post this in response to your comment at October 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm solely to demonstrate that I have read it.
As Anna V subsequently points out at October 17, 2010 at 12:34 am, your response is pure pseudoscience.
The principles I stated in my post at October 16, 2010 at 3:16 am
are known as ‘the scientific method’. You would do well to learn about it.
Richard
James Sexton says:
@Steve Metzler
Oh, sorry, apparently, through all of my verbosity I could have just said “Beer’s law” (who knew?) for much of the saturation part of my post. Google is such a cool thing! Also, I was unclear about the curve. doubling CO2 = the temp rise of the last doubling. So if doubling raises 1 degree, then the next doubling will also. Or, if raising 200 ppm raises 1 degree, then the next 200 will only raise 0.5 degree. <—— Is what I meant to say.
I really shouln’t have engaged on this topic of the CO2 greenhouse effect being saturated, because I was travelling all day yesterday, and now things have moved on. One thing that is important to note though, John, is that the CO2 concentration has not doubled. That won’t happen till it hits 560ppm. So you can’t say there has been 1C since ‘doubling’. What there has been is a .8C increase since going from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm to today’s 390ppm. It looks like we are on course for the doubling to occur sometine around 2050, and for the resulting global temp increase to be 3C as a result, not 1C. It is not Co2 alone that accounts for the greenhouse effect. Higher temps mean that the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which apmplifies the effect.
The bottom line is that, aside from increased de-forestation, the only thing that could cause the increase in global average temps that we have seen since pre-industrial times is the CO2 that mankind has been pouring into the atmosphere by burning fossil fueals. Attempts to downplay this are just smoke and mirrors from the denier camp.
Steve Metzler says:
October 17, 2010 at 8:18 am
The bottom line is that, aside from increased de-forestation, the only thing that could cause the increase in global average temps that we have seen since pre-industrial times is the CO2 that mankind has been pouring into the atmosphere by burning fossil fueals. Attempts to downplay this are just smoke and mirrors from the denier camp.
Do a favor to yourself and study the temperature record over the last 400.000 years and think whether “the only thing that could cause the increase in global average temps that we have seen since pre-industrial times is the CO2 that mankind has been pouring ” is a logical conclusion. There are even larger variations than the variation from the little ice age recorded :
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Steve Metzler says:
October 17, 2010 at 8:18 am
“It is not Co2 alone that accounts for the greenhouse effect. Higher temps mean that the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which apmplifies the effect.”
Why does an increase in CO2 lead to higher temperature and more water vapor; and why does not more water vapor lead to higher temperatures and more water vapor, IOW, what makes CO2 so special that only an increase in CO2 can cause a water vapor feedback?
Your answer will doubtlessly be “because we need CO2 as the root cause so we can introduce regulations and siphon off billions of dollars; we can’t do that with water vapor”.
Joel Shore says:
October 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“[…] with the theory, are being presented all of the time. It is only once a sufficient number of discrepancies haven’t been able to be resolved…and usually also a better theory comes along…that the theory will be discarded.”
So i think we can drop the Arrhenius theory now and use Miskolczi’s.
Steve Metzler says:
October 17, 2010 at 8:18 am
What there has been is a .8C increase since going from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm to today’s 390ppm.
You forget to add that half that warming was in the period 1900-1945, when CO2 levels were hardly above baseline. Then we had a cooler period with increasing CO2 levels 1945-1975. Again a warming 1975-2000, flat again 2000-2009 (and yet an El Niño 2009-2010, need a few years more to see if it remains warm after that). Thus most of the warming 1900-1945 was natural and a part of the 1975-2000 warming was natural too.
Attributing the whole warming 1900-2010 to GHGs (with or without feedback) alone is way out of reality.
From another site : —
* 16 Sep
*
http://landshape.org/enm/government-science
DirkH:
You’re just talking nonsense. The water vapor feedback applies to warming that occurs due to any mechanism. It just so happens that CO2 is the thing that is increasing at the moment and thus causing an increase in radiative forcing.
Miskolczi doesn’t have a “theory”. He just had incomprehensible nonsense that some people have embraced because they want to believe it. Science is not some a la carte cafeteria where you can just choose the hypothesis that fits your fancy, which is why there is such a stark divide between the scientific community and the ideologues who want to science to reach a different conclusion than it is reaching.
Joel Shore says:
October 18, 2010 at 4:29 pm
So i think we can drop the Arrhenius theory now and use Miskolczi’s.
Miskolczi doesn’t have a “theory”. He just had incomprehensible nonsense that some people have embraced because they want to believe it. Science is not some a la carte cafeteria where you can just choose the hypothesis that fits your fancy, which is why there is such a stark divide between the scientific community and the ideologues who want to science to reach a different conclusion than it is reaching.
Wow! Your intemperate words take my breath away!
So you are equating the CAGW cabal with ‘the scientific community’? Surely the topic of this thread is discussing the fallacy of that assumption. It is very, very clear that once-scientific organisations like the AAAS have become political advocacy organisations and the real scientists, like Hal Lewis, cannot stomach it any longer. A similar situation persists with the Royal Society in England.
Both organisations have strayed far from their founding principles and the causes of that would seem to be the corrupting influence of Government financing of ‘research’. The corruption is starkly obvious, especially in the white-washing of recent ‘enquiries’ into the behaviour of high-profile ‘scientists’ by their governing universities, all of which failed to address the issues in any semblace of the depth required to restore confidence in their work. Rather it was a quick discussion of how to sweep the issue under the carpet, drinks all round, then a carefully worded exhoneration that said nothing of substance. What a foundation on which to try and build a world-wide agreement to curb the use of energy!
What is perhaps even more amazing is how the echo-chamber of pro-CAGW believers can swallow that sort of hypocracy without even the slightest qualm!
Paul