Guest post by Warren S. Warren
A reply to Roger Cohen from a fellow Executive Committee member
In a recent posting on your web site, Roger Cohen, who was on the Organizing Committee for the APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate and just resigned from the Executive Committee, posted his resignation letter with an expanded “explanation”. As a member of both committees, I consider his letter to be a direct attack on my integrity, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Since I have been involved in organizing the Topical Group from the beginning, my views on climate change are relevant. I have never published in that field (my background is chemical physics, and research focus is on medical imaging) and I am not an advocate for either “side” in this discussion. But I could make the same statement about virtually everyone else involved on those committees. I don’t buy the arguments that only “experts on climate change” can understand the data and draw conclusions-any more than I would accept the same argument about astrology or homeopathic medicine. I can say that I am appalled by the highly unscientific and highly unprofessional way I see many prominent individuals, on both sides of this discussion, behave in public. For example, every tiny bit of new noisy data seems to get blown up into “conclusive evidence” one way or the other-ignoring what Judith Curry is fond of calling the uncertainty monster that clearly has not been tamed. I also feel that the APS statement on climate change (with the word “incontrovertible”) was very ill-advised, but the controversy focused on one badly-chosen word has harmed science by discouraging other scientific organizations from helping to sort wheat from chaff in this field. Finally, I think formation of the Topical Group on the Physics of Climate is a very positive step, and has the potential to dramatically improve the scientific discourse in this field.
In Roger’s post on this website, he presented himself as the voice of sanity in a biased group. That is certainly not the way I remember our interactions on that committee. But I will not try to tell stories; instead, I will let him speak for himself. Start with his consulting work on carbon remediation:
http://globalthermostat.com/team/roger-cohen
(and just in case he gets that taken down, here is a copy: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nu1o1ksyhc5u891/roger-cohen.htm)
and then reconcile this viewpoint with what he expressed in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Many other people have trouble speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. I will not miss him on the Executive Committee.
Much more importantly, the GPC Executive Committee and Program Committee has put together an extremely balanced set of speakers for the March 2013 meeting, including several Roger suggested. As I am not the chair, I do not feel it is my place to reveal the program, but I think nobody will look at the set of speakers at the March meeting and find them unbalanced. In addition, absolutely any APS member can submit an abstract, which by APS bylaws will be accepted for presentation.
Bottom line: if you are interested in climate science, as divorced from climate policy, and an American Physical Society member, GPC is a natural home for you and your input is welcome.
==============================================================
NOTE: I agree with his views on uncertainty and the elevation of weather noise to “conclusive evidence” but I don’t agree with Mr. Warren’s characterizations of Mr. Cohen. But, in the interest of fairness I have allowed this rebuttal, even though he has used a personal cheap shot about “speaking out of both sides of their mouth”. We’ll hold judgement on the speakers list for March 2013 until we see it. At that time it can be determined how balanced it is. – Anthony
===============================================================
UPDATE: a comment from APS see below.
Submitted on 2012/10/25 at 8:05 am
Dear Mr. Watts,
The trademarked APS logo must be removed from this site because the American Physical Society did not give permission for its use. Furthermore, the headline, “The APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate, reply to:” should be removed because it is misleading. It wrongly implies an official APS endorsement of the reply to Mr. Cohen’s resignation.
Sincerely,
Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
American Physical Society
REPLY: Dear Ms. Johnson. The logo is from Wikipedia, and it is used here (like many other content items from Wikipedia) under the exception for fair use. Under fair use, I do not require permission from APS to use the logo that is at Wikipedia. They state:
Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.
If you wish to take the issue up with them, and if you are successful in having them remove it from Wikipedia I will follow suit. Bear also in mind that this logo comes up in WordPress automatically in the Zemanta free “cleared” content available to thousands of WordPress users. So you’ll also have to take the issue up with WordPress.com to get the hundreds and perhaps thousands of other uses of the logo also removed.
Until such time, for my part to ensure no unsuspecting reader might be influenced by the logo as you suggest, I’ll put the comment and my response in the main body of the article. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why did he fold in homeopathy and astrology?
I wonder why this site refers almost invariably to “Dr. Svalgaard,” but to “Mr. Warren” or “Mr. Cohen” in the post above when, presumably, all three hold the Ph.D. degree? I’ve noted at other sites a tendency to refer to those with whom we agree “Dr.” – if appropriate – and those with whom we do not “Mr.” but I would have hoped for better from WUWT whose efforts I have much appreciated.
” I don’t buy the arguments that only “experts on climate change” can understand the data and draw conclusions”
excellent point and one that I entirely agree with.
And since the uncertainty is infinite with so many sample sizes equal to ONE, this point is also important. So little reliable data, just so MANY statistically invalid conclusions….
Equating climate change science, homeopathy, and astrology? Do I smell a Mike Mann lawsuit threat?
16 years and no hockey stick in sight. OHC declining and no hockey stick in sight. “incontrovertible” still in the mission statement and hockey sticks only visible either on the hockey rink or in government supported Climate literature. Lets have an unbiased equal footing discussion about climate change (AGW). Follow the money it is all in the grants not the science.
I would appreciate Dr. Warren’s stating why the APS refuses even to remove the objectionable, anti-scientific word “incontrovertible” from its statement and whether it was indeed written in as cavalier a manner as Dr. Cohen describes? Thanks.
Actually, it could be a positive sign. The implication was that it does not take an expert to understand current climate science, any more than it takes an expert to understand what homeopaths and astrologers say. The “team’s” repeated defense has been that somehow their understanding of climate and the effects of CO2 were more esoterically informed and thus more valid than say Steve McIntyre’s. That Steve never made an actual argument about how climate works – that I have ever read any – and criticises their statistical methods, implies that somehow “climate” mathematics operates differently than mathematics in other disciplines. That would be the sole defense for not having their mathematics and statistical methods subjected to an outside review – only climate scientists can understand climate statistics and physics. That approach is pure esotericism.
As a member of both committees, I consider his letter to be a direct attack on my integrity, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
I also feel that the APS statement on climate change (with the word “incontrovertible”) was very ill-advised,
If he had integrity wouldn’t he resign over the use of the word “incontrovertible”?
Dr. Warren: I have consulted your links and I don’t see the problem. Perhaps you could spell out what you consider inconsistent….
But I will not try to tell stories; instead, I will let him speak for himself. Start with his consulting work on carbon remediation (link) and then reconcile this viewpoint with what he expressed in the Wall Street Journal(link).
Many other people have trouble speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
How do those links demonstrate that Cohen is “talking out of both sides of his Mouth?” Only one of them quotes Roger Cohen saying anything. The Globalthermostat link doesn’t point to anything Cohen said. Ginning up a contradiction from that requires a lot of assumptions and other acts of imagination.
And if you do that, what are you left with? The letter in the WSJ to which he added his endorsement is a statement against interest. That adds credibility. Contrast this with the people stumping for CAGW, while personally benefitting from the scare they are helping to perpetuate.
If you are going to bark up that tree, you need to do a better job of it.
Dr. Warren,
I read your reply. I had hoped for something better to support your statement that Dr. Cohen speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Your citation to globalthermometer.com shows a corporate website with Cohen’s bio. So he is being paid based on his experience as a corporate industrial scientist – that’s a crime now? You could argue that Cohen’s position is in fact more sincere – by publicly stating he doesn’t believe the anthropogenic CO2 caused warming yet pocketing the lucre seems more sincere than say, Al Gore’s faux concern about sea level rise coupled with his lavish lifestyle and personal wealth gain. Our webhost, Anthony Watts, claims to drive a hybrid car with good gas mileage – are you going to accuse him of being a hypocrite too for not owning a gas-guzzler?
Arguments among hoity toit academics are akin to playing “catch as catch can” with bacon producing entities in a hole filled with oil well drilling fluid.
Warren S. Warren says:
“I also feel that the APS statement on climate change (with the word “incontrovertible”) was very ill-advised, but the controversy focused on one badly-chosen word has harmed science by discouraging other scientific organizations from helping to sort wheat from chaff in this field.”
What in the world does this mean? I would love to know what “scientific organizations” were discouraged from issuing yet another useless “policy statement” designed to assure the Federal government that they are on the right side of the funding issue.
Did I get the right hyperlinks in Dr.Warren’s post?
If so, his evidence that Dr, Cohen cannot be a “voice of sanity” and that he was “speaking out of both sides of [his] mouth” is a pair of links to documents that establish nothing more than that Dr. Cohen is a skeptic. If Dr. Warren thinks merely being a skeptic disqualifies one as a voice of sanity and proves that one speaks out of both sides of his mouth, then it’s quite likely that his APS committee is indeed, as Dr. Cohen’s post contended, using a person’s skepticism as a reason for excluding that person’s input.
The point I like here is Anthony allows rebuttals. Can you imagine that ever happening at Real Climate or Skeptical Science, where only the repetitious chants from the CAGW bible are allowed.
Warren isn’t lumping climate skepticism together with homeopathy and astrology. It is the climate science consensus that he is lumping together with these more questionable practices.
The consensus claims that the only one’s who should be listened two are those who have the credentials that the consensus doles out, and that the only papers that should be looked at are in the peer reviewed journals that the consensus controls. That is like saying no one can judge astrology but an astrologer, credentialed by high society of credentialed astrologers. Warren hits the nail on the head.
I looked at the two sites that Dr. Warren provided. In the first there is a statement of the organization about Dr. Cohen, one of either their consultants or technology advisors. Dr. Warren should’ve realized we look closely at evidence. There is no where in this statement that says anything of what Dr. Cohen’s opinions are. Kudos to this organization for having someone helping with an open mind. No kudos to Dr. Warren, he has failed to provide any proof of as he so crudely puts it, ‘speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.’.
This leads me to believe that this might be a situation of a guilty conscience lashing out at the one making him uncomfortable. I do not believe that Dr. Warren has helped his case. Instead it appears that he is stooping to the lowest of political tools; trying to smear the reputation of one bringing light to a situation.
Kudos to Mr Watts for allowing both sides to present their case.
I notice that the Global Thermostat was formed in 2006 and seems most concerned with CCS. That might be something, from a project planning point of view that Dr Cohen could get involved in, given his CV.
.
But then, I notice that the letter to the WSJ was dated 24th Oct 2012.
Is it at all possible that in the intervening six years Dr Cohen has seen the light and changed his mind about AGW ‘science’ and the kinds of people/organisations who support the AGW brief; especially those who – purporting to represent physics and science – come up with a statement that says ‘the’ Science is ‘incontrovertible’, when science is no such thing. And then being so pusillanimous as to say the statement cannot be changed.
Why does Roger Cohen’s bio say that he was a lead author on many IPCC chapters? Is there even one?
Dr. Warren doesn’t seem to understand the phrase “Many other people have trouble speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.” The arguement that APS should not make a promouncement that any scientific theory is incontrovertible, which is what he is telling APS, and that APS should focus on science, and not policy, is not at odds with statements he makes to other audiences.
Interesting: having worked for Exxon should invalidate Cohen’s opinion. I suppose that opinions’ of anyone with an energy portfolio in his 401(k) are therefore tainted… It’s “tell me who you work for and I’ll tell you your opinion doesn’t count”, hardly a great line of defence.
This guy sounds like extraterrestrial. There were billions of $ wasted already on fighting “incontrovertible” AGW. So it is not just a gentlemanly discussion on “ill-advised statement on climate change” any more. He is 20 years too late. 😉
Warren S. Warren
Try to understand that government regulations can create a NEED for something that isn’t really NEEDED. If the EPA, for example, were to require carbon capture then it’s not duplicitous to design, build, and sell carbon capture equipment to those subject to such regulations even if you don’t believe it’s necessary to “combat” Anthropogenic Global Warming.
“I also feel that the APS statement on climate change (with the word “incontrovertible”) was very ill-advised, but the controversy focused on one badly-chosen word has harmed science …”<
No.
The controversy over the word has not harmed science,
the use of the word has.
Take responsibility for the mistake, correct it, and move on. Blaming someone else for your “very ill-advised” statement won’t fly here.
No need for apologies about the inconvenient “incontrovertible”.
I will let Robert L. Byer, the President of the APS deny it:
“The statement does not declare, as the authors of the op-ed suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203711104577199330965279516.html