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
That was quite the tantrum.
Sir,
When you said:
“As a member of both committees, I consider his letter to be a direct attack on my integrity.”
You were right. It is. Furthermore, your integrity suffered additional injury by self inflicted wound when you wrote:
” 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”
The fact that you feel that science was harmed, and not your professional reputation demonstrates that you and your integrity have not spoken in a while. You have chained your professional self to a rusting, rat infested ship. You seem to be unaware that your ship is leaking at several key points, and in the very near future, one of those leaks is likely to become a fatal flood. After the good ship incontrovertible hits the proverbial iceberg, and goes down with all hands, I wonder what kind of carcass your integrity will leave behind?
Are you a rat? Aware that you have no integrity, but feasting a the trough until it goes under? Are you a useful idiot? Unaware of the fraud on the good ship AGW? But joining in? Or, are you a true believer? Believing in spite of the accumulation of evidence that every single TESTABLE prediction made by AGW alarmists has failed?
No matter. Your integrity will have succumbed. That is incontrovertible.
Should the APS logo be attached to this piece?
Dr Warren,
I have one additional request of you.
Show up.
Of what value are your (supposedly civil) committee meetings which arrive, behind closed doors, at statements of fact which you now admit are “ill advised” yet you refuse to retract them? If the issue of CAGW is of such a concern to your committee, of such importance to the human race, then why aren’t you and your members showing up to discuss and debate the science? Dr. Robert Brown (rgbatduke) has just weighed in on this thread, and he’s been active on this site debunking skeptics with rotten science as much as he has, perhaps more, than alarmists with rotten science.
If you really give a d*mn about the science and humanity, then where the h*ll have you been hiding? And why? Scan the threads on WUWT and you’ll find a remarkable number of PhD’s in everything from physics to the humanities plus a boat load of people who may have no credentials but have proven over the years that they bring valuable knowledge to the table. They’re here debating, educating, questioning, learning, sharing knowledge. They’re at tallbloke’s and lucia’s and curry’s and jo nova’s and on and on and on. They’re discussing the issues, large and small, that between them add up to the big picture, in excrutiating detail.
Where are you?
Where are your colleagues on your prescious committee?
Of what value are your efforts to meet behind closed doors, occasionaly issue an “ill advised” statement, and then refuse to retract it? The science is being scrutinized in depth all over the internet by some incredibly well informed people. Are you part of that discussion? Or just content organizing a committee that defends the indefensible?
Show up.
Or STFU
Warren S. Warren:
I am pleased that Anthony provided you the opportunity for rebuttal. I suppose in these matters, one should anticipate the exposure of personal feelings, so I do not begrudge you that. I understand why Dr. Cohen resigned. I do not understand the clinging to beliefs that the quality, varying quantities (where did all the high latitude and high altitude stations go after 1990?) or even the integrity of the data (disposal of raw data [UEA-CRU], opacity of “adjustments”) in any way lends credibility to our very short instrumental record. The use of anything greater than 3.5% attribution CO2 in GCMs coupled with specious understanding of clouds, aerosols etc. and when we live (probably at an end extreme interglacial) does not convey skill in my opinion. I have written tons of geophysical modeling code, and testified often on their quality and use. Nothing I have yet seen in the climate modeling world suggests more than the vaguest of skill. In my opinion, even considering discussing anything approaching public policy from such sordid data and things built on that data, might be grounds for dismissal from a scientific society. I cannot even fathom how such a thing might elevate to anything remotely akin to an “incontrovertible” professional scientific society’s “position”. The use of that word is horrifying to what I learned and practice as science. Even considering removing it cannot repair base credibility. Going there at all conveys bias, a thing which Climategate confirmed.
I do not expect you to agree with those opinions.
And it is not necessary. The matter can be approached decisively without regard to consensus, strong opinion or very much data, for that matter.
Take the highest credible or even incredible estimate of CO2’s total collective impact on climate and certify it as true. Pass that, and the half-precessional cycle old Holocene through the eye of the Precautionary Principle. Now explain why you would remove such a vaunted security blanket from the late Holocene atmosphere with the sun gone all quiet on us, and the PDO switched negative for 4 years now.
The true and correct environmental signature is actually this. If you are a dedicated environmentalist, steward of the earth sort, wouldn’t removing the security blanket actually be the correct thing to do? Wouldn’t it be respectful of the earth’s natural cycles to let it decide for itself if it’s time for the next ice age? The whole argument becomes much more interesting if you comprehend when we live, doesn’t it?
As I watch these spats play out I am constantly reminded of how vital, how necessary, abrupt, catastrophic climate change is to humanity:
“An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.”
state Trauth, et al (2009) in Quaternary Science Reviews. There is just nothing quite like having such a natural fly land in your climate change soup. As it turns out, periods of wet maximum climate variability (in modern lingo, global warming correctly re-branded as climate change), cook up the larger braincases. We went from 500-550cc braincases 2.8 mya to the average of about 1,500cc today in the most rapid encephalization of any mammal in the fossil record.
If we take CO2 out of the late Holocene atmosphere, we might just unfetter a normal, natural tipping point. Which would rather neatly get us back on the track of survival of the fittest……..
Lot of good responses here covering a lot of stuff. I find that while
rgbatduke says: October 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm post great it is by far way to civil and nice about this issue.
Warren s. warren’s piece is nothing but propaganda junk from start to finish.
[i] “As a member of both committees, I consider his letter to be a direct attack on my integrity”[/i]
Really? You think?
[i]Since I have been involved in organizing the Topical Group from the beginning, my views on climate change are relevant.[/i]
Few things with this statement…
First you clearly imply that some how “other/s” views are not relevant. Can we please get the list of “irrelevant”/”relevant” people?
Second since you admit to managing this ship up on the rocks, its nice that you well admit that much of the blame is your fault.
[i]But I could make the same statement about virtually everyone else involved on those committees.[/i]
Really? Thats a pretty bold statement. We’ll cover this a bit more in detail later.
[i] 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] Congrats for having a basic understanding of how science works… I’m sure most decent middle school to high school level students would also have this basic education… funny enough it seems to be lacking from many of the members in your “group”.
[i]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]
Really could we get some details on the anti-doomsday cult side acting like this? As far as I know its very very rare. Now on the other hand if you mean to include where the anti-doomsday crowd points when the pro-doomsday crowd does it and then mocks them for it… thats a bit of a stretch for “highly unprofessional”. Unprofessional maybe, “ill-advised” maybe. It is clearly though not “highly unscientific”. So please I would love to see some evidence of this.
[i]I also feel that the APS statement on climate change (with the word “incontrovertible”) was very ill-advised[/i]
Really? “ill-advised” huh? Kind of like o I don’t know when Walter Duranty used to say when stalin murdered millions that to quote Mr Durantly a well respected “expert” of the New York Times when referencing this mass murder, ” you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”. Surely Mr Durantly statement was equally “ill-advised” in the same definition of the verbiage you are using.
On the other hand those of us who are sane would at the very least label the statement “anti-science” at a minimum. Retarded, propaganda, bigoted and i’m sure a host of other words could be added to add “flavor” and focus to the problem of the verbiage chosen. The fact that you not only choose attempt to minimize the truly outrageous statement but refuse to even retract the statement… well as they say that’s “incontrovertible” proof of just how bias you really are. Really it sounds more like its not so much the statement that was “ill-advised” but how you handled the propaganda and the controversy that resulted from it. It would seem that your more interested in how to control the controversy then why it started. You also seem very interested in defending the statement that caused the controversy vs admitting any fault or for that matter correcting the statement.
[i]but the controversy focused on one badly-chosen word has harmed science[/i]
This is an interesting statement in first it wasn’t just the one word… nor can one say that this one word was badly chosen. The one word in question was specifically chosen for its meaning. Unless your trying to claim that the group that released this statement did a very poor job and rushed the issue and were RETARDED. I fail to see exactly what your claim is… your statement seems to want to imply that they did something wrong without really saying they did. Could you please narrow this statement into “Yes this group chose wrongly this word and the statement and group were wrong and will be held accountable”? If not then clearly your statement is merely a poor attempt at damage control.
As to “harming science” you seem to imply that “the controversy” has harmed science instead of the APS statement. You would do well in the future to be more exact in stating that it was the APS statement and the choosing of this word that caused harm.
[i]by discouraging other scientific organizations from helping to sort wheat from chaff in this field.[/i] Wow… where to start with this one.
First the APS is pretty clear that the APS has already “sorted the wheat from the chaff in this field”. Wasn’t that the whole point of the statement? Also once again in this statement you seem to argue that “the controversy” is the issue not the statement. The statement is the cause of whatever this “discouraging” effect maybe. “The controversy” is overall meaningless in that matter.
[i]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.[/i]
Really? Hmm that doesn’t make much sense since first only a complete retard thinks that “forming a committee” is somehow a meaningful step in anything. Second the APS has clearly stated in its statement that the debate is over and their is no need for “improved scientific discourse in the field”. In fact by the APS statement their is no NEED or WANT for ANY discourse of any kind in the field.
[/i]In Roger’s post on this website, he presented himself as the voice of sanity in a biased group.[/i] Truthfully one would find it hard to be opposed to the APS statement and not be on the side of sanity. So I think most people taking a look at this issue are just going to automatically assume Roger’s sanity based on I don’t know..? Using the scientific method perhaps? Just saying…. Even assuming Roger’s insane… even a broken correct is right at least once a day. Sometimes even more.
[i]That is certainly not the way I remember our interactions on that committee. But I will not try to tell stories;[/i] O yes the “I would release the hidden transcripts from our closed door meetings”. Clearly science behind closed doors formed by “committee” is the “best” science.
[i]Many other people have trouble speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.[/i] Really you mean like you in this very letter? I would also be-careful…what with all the libel suits going around. One could argue that someone your claiming that Roger defrauded, failed to complete contracts or stole from these people. This statement and the above links could be considered “ill-advised”.
[i] I will not miss him on the Executive Committee.[/i] Not surprising to anyone I’m sure. I also sure you don’t miss any of the other countless people that resigned. After all science is about having the elite make consensus and when your not part of the consensus your thus not part of the elite… and thus no room for you at APS.
[i]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.[/i]Really now? I like the fact you couldn’t be bothered to get permission to release the names… but make the clearly joke of a claim that “nobody will look and find them “unbalanced””. Of course you may choose to hide the list preventing anyone from looking at all. That would be pretty standard.
To simply sum it up your argument is a joke from start to finish. You are at best trying to run damage control at worse trying to justify clearly anti-scientific statements made by the APS.
Your letter is for propaganda purposes and you will not debate any of the facts that you claim or that have been shown wrong. You write this letter simply to “settle” the issue and that much like the APS statement this letter talks about this as simply the “final word” and all that matters. The elites have spoken and the peons should obey. If you expect anyone to take you the least bit seriously you’ll have to do a lot more then this pathetic letter and have a real debate.
William McClenney says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:14 pm
“We went from 500-550cc braincases 2.8 mya to the average of about 1,500cc today in the most rapid encephalization of any mammal in the fossil record.”
Some attribute this rapid development of the frontal lobes to increased cultivation of cereals, wheat, and other dietary considerations. True, our modern brains do use almost a third (not quite) of our body’s energy budget.
So, take home point is: those who wish to reverse and restrict progress in agriculture, along with the environmentalist’s hostility towards cattle and milch cows, apparently are the true anti-evolutionists.
Now what is that frontal lobe for/from…
Reblogged this on sainsfilteknologi and commented:
Physics of Climate
As I understand it, the situation is as follows:
In 2007, the APS issues a statement on climate change which included the unfortunate phrase: “The science is incontrovertible”. In response to this and the APS’s unwillingness to moderate its climate change statement some APS members – notably Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever – resigned or let their membership lapse. Dr Cohen, who claims also to have objected to the unscientific nature of the APS’s statement, elected to work within the APS to refocus debate within the APS on the science itself by organising a new “topical group” on climate science. Notwithstanding his best efforts, he claims that he discovered that those scientists that did not support the contentions of the APS statement on climate change – and in particular, the “incontrovertible” nature of the science – were excluded from debate within the Topical Group. In consequence, and by way of a open letter, Dr Cohen resigned from the topical group’s Executive Committee.
Dr Warren, a fellow topical group Executive Committee member, has provided a response to Dr Cohen’s open letter in which, in large measure, he claims that Dr Cohen actions are two-faced: on the one-hand, he argues, in his open letter, Dr Cohen presented himself as the voice of sanity, while on the other hand in interactions on the Executive Committee, Dr Cohen behaved very differently. Dr Warren also claims that APS’s statement on climate change was “ill-advised” but does not believe that use of the word “incontrovertible” has harmed science.
On the basis of the information to hand, it is not possible to test the veracity of Dr Warren’s claim that Dr Cohen has presented different public and private personas. Perhaps he has, and perhaps this is material, but unless and until Dr Warren brings forth something more robust with which to substantiate this claim, this suggestion should be regarded as spurious and Dr Cohen should be judged upon his public words and deeds alone.
I do note, however, that if one believes that use of the word is “incontrovertible” in the APS’s statement on climate change is a direct attack on the integrity of science and in the face of an unwillingness of the APS to modify this assertion then, really, there is only one valid courses of action: to resign and place distance between oneself and the APS. This is the route taken by Ivar Giaever and a number of other APS members and they are to be commended for it.
Attempting to bring about remedial action from within an organisation rarely succeeds and places one firmly on the path to hypocrisy – a condition in which one is not only forced to lie to others, but (far worse) one is forced to lie to oneself as well.
Zeke says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:45 pm,
Well, the braincase jumps began about the same time as the onset of the northern hemisphere glaciations. So about 2 million years of obliquity paced 41kyr glacial/interglacial cycles and something like a million years of 100kyr, eccentricity paced cycles, which we appear to still be in. H.Sapiens came along about 200kyrs ago during MIS-7.
If memory serves me correctly agriculture began during this interglacial, the Holocene, in the range of 10kyrs ago. As the eccentricity minima are ~400kyr apart, “Some attribute this rapid development of the frontal lobes to increased cultivation of cereals, wheat, and other dietary considerations.” is precluded. Agriculture would have to be several eccentricity maxima, and braincase-capacity jumps old to have attribution. At 10kyrs in an eccentricity minimum extreme interglacial (like MIS-11, 400kyrs ago), agriculture just does not figure in to the braincase jumps on 400kyr periodicity. The last eccentricity maxima being 200kyrs ago, MIS-7, when we got on-stage.
AGW promoters make homeopaths look almost reasonable.
Keith G says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Well said.
@rgbatduke says:
October 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Gonna have to nickname you “the Hammer.” You always seem to find the nail and hit it squarely on the head.
Mr. Warren,
WUWT has a very wide audience and Mr. Watts has given you access to that. I have carefully read Dr. Cohen’s letter as well as yours. The responses via comments are most insightful and it gives a peek into the “upper” levels of the inside workings of the APS and/or at least the committees that you are involved in. There are surely many APS members who are also following this closely. For the sake of the APS, perhaps a letter to the entire membership should be sent referencing these two letters, from yourself as well as Dr. Cohen, published here on WUWT to inform them of the present controversies within the APS and provide the members a venue to express their own views. To provide their input without concern for censorship they could continue the established threads. That would be a true objective action on your part and possibly save some credibility on behalf of the APS. Your call.
My bolding of certain words.
Doctor Warren:
A) This is rather public. Are you behaving in a scientific and professional manner here? Not to my understanding are you professional and as far as scientific, definitely not.
B) Your views on climate change are relevant. Agreed. Is this a specific item of contention? From this perspective (mine), you specifically identify your view as relevant. Then add in your considering Doctor Cohen’s resignation and explanation as an attack on your integrity makes me wonder if there is a connection?
Let’s break this down a little. Where does your relevant view connect with Doctor Cohen’s disgust ans resignation? Perhaps you feel you were identified specifically in his letter? Something that only committee insiders would possibly know? Like perhaps being a part of a “…dominant influence which saw no reason to be inclusive…”? Or are there other terrors that Doctor Cohen’s resignation letter bring out?
C) You mention an example where scientists behave badly; “…For example, every tiny bit of new noisy data seems to get blown up into “conclusive evidence”…”. I found this statement somewhat odd. I can recall quite a few papers and announcements where noisy data gets blown up into “conclusive evidence”, but virtually all of them are from those immensely well funded CAGWers. I have trouble remembering any papers or announcements that would be called sceptical AGWers that try to do the same. From an observers position I see the same rough ratio regarding their behaviors.
Did sceptics whine about “death threats” that turned out to be fabrications? Do sceptics impersonate board members of private organizations, dupe secretarys into sending them personal information, fabricate documents and then release both to the public with fraudulent claims? Do sceptics abuse pseudo science collecting data from CAGW shills and then publishing their personal viewpoints as ‘scientific research”? Do sceptics discuss retaliation efforts against editors and periodicals because they didn’t like what was printed? Do sceptics refuse to share data, methods, code and whatever else is necessary for independent research?
I am curious what it is that you think scientists on the sceptical side, (which I always understood to be the basic scientific method), do when they behave badly? Resign? Refuse to believe? Ask for all views to be heard equally and given a chance?
D) You make a claim that “…GPC Executive Committee and Program Committee has put together an extremely balanced set of speakers for the March 2013 meeting…”.
March 2013? Is that the first meeting? Are there any meetings planned after? Does EVERYONE agree that the speakers represent “balance”? It is pretty obvious that you do not intend to allow us to judge how balanced the set of speakers are. Telling everyone that they have to wait till formal announcement means that the program for March will be set in stone AND so will all sessions following March.
E) Many others here have expressed very well their view of your indignation and the target of your rebuttal. The rebuttal was not against advocacy, nor was it against APS’s statement on climate change. Your rebuttal is a personal attack on Doctor Cohen. You may not miss him on the committee, but I suspect based on your rather virulent yet clumsy attempt here, that many other members of the committees would probably prefer that you were the one to resign.
Given the well articulated rebukes and criticisms raised in response to Dr Warren’s letter of rebuttal, it strikes me that he could not have done more harm to his personal reputation as a scientist, and that of the APS as a whole, had he set out to deliberately do so.
Your letter as written was “ill advised” Dr Warren, as is your continued silence.
Anthony, could you perhaps lean on Dr Warren to respond to the many reasonable questions put to him above?
In particular, he needs to explain the nature of the conflict that he alone apparently sees as bad enough to resort to insulting Dr Cohen, whereas most commenters are having trouble working out what on earth he is moaning about.
Could you also institute a new rule, that guest posts will not be allowed on WUWT unless the author is prepared to read and respond to any follow up points. Simply allowing gratuitous insults to stand with no responses isn’t being fair minded, it’s being used.
The rebuttal is written by an ex-scientist bureaucrat. The verbiage and composition style are characteristic and unmistakable.
steveta_uk says:
October 25, 2012 at 1:14 am
“Anthony, could you perhaps lean on Dr Warren to respond to the many reasonable questions put to him above?”
Agreed try to get some to put up some fight… instead of cowering and making pronouncements from his ivory tower.
“Could you also institute a new rule, that guest posts will not be allowed on WUWT unless the author is prepared to read and respond to any follow up points. Simply allowing gratuitous insults to stand with no responses isn’t being fair minded, it’s being used.”
Don’t really agree with this… never have any guest posts from the doomsday cultists if this rule was put in. Its good to watch them flop around trying to come up with something rational and logic to say as a rebuttal…just makes them look worse in the end.
Like the rest of APS statement the word “incontrovertible” was selected with an eye on the politics not the actual science, at the time ‘the cause ‘ was unquestionable god and a very rich resource of possible research funding , as it still is .
One you consider the purposes of this statement, to outline the APS ‘political ‘ position on AGW, the unscientific language it contains starts to make sense. While Warren words tell us that from day one they knew this statement was not scientifically valid even if it was ‘political wise ‘ at the time.
as I have said many many times, when Richard Feynman died we lost the last great physicist, the last great scientist with integrity and the last truly sceptical great scientist. The Institute of Physics, of which I was a member, and I suspect the APS have degraded into political, money oriented activist organisations. They dislike intensely any form of criticism, scepticism or scientific discussion.
Warren warren by this letter you have shown yourself and your Societé in the dimmest, dirtiest of light.
RGB always a good read and an intelligent, thoughtful response. Well done as always Doc.
I just read it as a not very clever piece of snide ad hom argument, very typical of the type one encounters in university committees and common rooms all too frequently. Shame Warren hasn’t had, so far, the courage to respond to the many very valid criticisms of his piece made here. But that’s no surprise.
Dear Mr. Watts,
The trademarked APS logo must be removed from this post because the American Physical Society has not given permission for its use. Furthermore, the headline, “The APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate: reply to:” is misleading because it implies an official endorsement by the APS.
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:
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
Robert Austin asks (October 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm),
“. . . why do these alleged “scientific” organizations feel compelled to issue statements of opinion in fields of nascent science?”
Rhetorical question, I presume, but the answer is that these “statements of opinion” (cloaked as statements of fact) are really political statements, meant to affirm the organization’s support for an ideological agenda. They are normative, not empirical statements. Anthropogenic ‘global warming’ is ‘incontrovertible’ because it ought to be, as all True Believers will agree.
/Mr Lynn