Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Unthreaded | Main | Met Office to review its temperature series »
Saturday
Dec052009

More cracks in the facade

In my posting on the lack of any statement from the Royal Society on Climategate, I wondered if a refusal to address the wrongdoing might eventually lead the fellows to take a stand against the leadership. Something very like this seems to be happening at the American Physical Society. This email to a selection of the fellows of that august body was reposted to the comments at Climate Audit.

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science
isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

Sometimes I wonder if this isn't global warming we're fighting about, but rather the future of science.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (21)

It absolutely is about the future of science, as the scientists in other disciplines are coming to realize. I've expected them to turn on their own, or rather on the dodgy fringes, in order to save science as a whole, which you perhaps realize is under challenge all the time, despite its apparent ascendancy in the modern world. I'm not sure that is happening yet, although this letter certainly seems to be a bellwether.

Dec 5, 2009 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDABurack

it is about the future of global governance and an acceptable world religion.

http://green-agenda.com/author.html

"I was amazed to find that the same names kept appearing. In fact the same person is listed as the chief author of all those documents I just listed. He also headed the UN Reform Committee, authored the UN report on Global Governance, was the Assistant Secretary-General of the UN (#2) in charge, president of the UN 'University of Peace' and the leader of the Baha'i movement in North America. His name is Maurice Strong. "

Dec 5, 2009 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred

What will have made interested physicists uncomfortable for some time is the refusal to provide the data, how it was collected, how it was processed and so on.

Now the evidence of possible fraud will infuriate them.

Newton showed his workings, Darwin showed his workings. Clerk Maxwell showed his workings. Einstein showed his workings.

So, are Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Briffa and Jones so much greater than these men that we have to take their word for it?

Dec 5, 2009 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Wood

How would a scientist, or group of scientists, go about getting their message of concern out there?
It would seem that there is a significant percentage of the MSM that have not been willing to touch this stuff.
Many of the (supposedly) scientific blogs seem to have been active in trying to suppress any sign of dissent.
It would also seem that some scientists have not been allowed to effectively use the journals to publish concerns.

Having said that , there remains the issue you raised. There are people who believed in what thay have been told by the media, politicians and some scientists. If they now decide that they have been systematically and knowingly misled for the last 10 or 20 years then I can see no way to win back their trust.
Science deserves better, but those who have allowed this to happen do not.

Dec 5, 2009 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterTony Hansen

Jeff W

These poor excuse for scientists wll NEVER 'stand on the shoulders of giants' like Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc

""We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours." Attributed to John of Salisbury and later used by Isaac Newton in correspondence with his great rival Robert Hooke

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.".

KevinUK

Dec 5, 2009 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevinUK

What I really love is, 'that will make it easier for him to count' in the last paragraph. But perhaps they didn't mean it that way.

Dec 5, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTonyN

I'll forward this post to a physicist friend (and fellow sceptic) who's a member of the Royal Society

Dec 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterKeith

"Darwin showed his workings. Clerk Maxwell showed his workings. Einstein showed his workings.

So, are Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Briffa and Jones so much greater than these men that we have to take their word for it?
December 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJeff Wood "

I have plodded through most of "On The Origin of Species" and the "Descent" (Darwin is one of my heroes) it's amazing how stilted the writing is compared to his lovely letters. It is thus because he makes sure every thing he says is scientifically watertight.

I cannot believe people have been allowed to get away with not showing their data and methods.

Dec 5, 2009 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterShona

I've read this blog for weeks and love it.

I would have to ask the question of some of your commenters though, "Why are you surprised that there is so much shonk in science?". Some of us have been battling shonk in medicine for years, but very few people get that. Just as most people just believe IPCC.

Climate change isn't the only scientific facade with major cracks:

http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/_blog/Hilary's_Desk/post/The_ignorance_of_vaccinologists/

Dec 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterHilary Butler

All scientists need to make a clear statement against the so called "post-normal science"
Otherwise they will all turn into zombies.

Dec 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

I just hope that true scientists do not allow this to be swept under the carpet, because it seems politicans are completely oblivious to the mood of the people and are still hell bent on making Copenhagen a success, a success for them and their corporate friends to rake in the money. This scam should see every politican prosecuted for fraud, the first being Al Gore.

I'd also like to see the 'passive smoke' fraud exposed, for a fraud is what it is with reputable scientists being smeared and called tobacco shills for daring to disagree with Stan Glantz, ASH and the health fascists. Where the GW/CC fraud has been brewing for 20 years so it was with smoking, the George Godber report has been followed to the letter, nothing is based on science. The vast majority following the healthist line do so to continue receiving funding/grants. The same as with GW/CC where it has been said the debate is over the same was said on 'passive smoke'.

I realise that most couldn't give a damn about smoking but people should because it SHS claim is based on pseudo science, the same as GW/CC and there's more to follow on obesity, drinking and whatever public health , government & interested parties deem is a controlling money maker. As they say, follow the money every time.

The medical/scientific/research professions , once respected professions are respected no more. I'd just as soon trust a door to door salesman then one of these any more.

Dec 6, 2009 at 12:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry

Of course we are fighting for science itself - it has been highjacked by a bunch of zealots.

Dec 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterAJStrta

When this is what we have to deal with, it does feel like it's a battle we'll never be able to win. As much as we'd like to deny it, this is the opinion of the "climate conscious" middle classes and greenwashed masses. We'll always only be conspiracy theorists and flat earthers. God bless ye though, Bish.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pixies/2009/12/5/1259974868682/05.12.09-Martin-Rowson-on-001.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/flat-earth-climate-change-copenhagen

Dec 6, 2009 at 2:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterManolo Gutiérrez

I believe it is scientists who will ultimately settle the climategate issue. Politicians, bloggers, warmists and sceptics can argue all they like, but rests upon the shoulders of scientists in general whether to take the 'there, but for the grace of God, go I' view or that the activities of CRU are beyond the pale.

Dec 6, 2009 at 5:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoue le Jour

Read the PS below


Monday, 21 February 2005 15:28:32 : Filename: 1109021312.txt
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Dec 7, 2009 at 6:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterNorman Webb

The issue has not been raised yet but is climate the only area of science that has been corrupted by politics? How many landmark "studies" in other scientific disciplines should be re-examined? Given that so many people around the world die from malaria each year, I can only hope and pray that the scientific studies that led to the banning of DDT had integrity.

Dec 7, 2009 at 7:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe

Joe

The same thought occurred to me. Is the problem not climate science per se, but state-funded science? (Whoops, my politics are showing!).

Dec 7, 2009 at 8:44 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I'm feeling very proud of we economists. We may have relied on bad science, since we, like so many others, trusted the temperature series' at least, but the Stern Report was vigorously attacked by the mainstream of economics, including those of us who are liberals (a majority).

Scientists had better start showing the guts to speak up, or science as a whole will be discredited. Silence is tolerance of the Climategate behavior.

Dec 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterEric Rasmusen

The APS has rejected these guys, saying they won't rescind the statement, but turn around say the Public Affairs committee with review it for "clarity and tone"
http://www.aps.org/about/governance/letters/murray.cfm

Dec 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn_R

Displaying my ignorance, boasting of it really, I would have loved to see the cost benefit analysis for the decision to include the signature of:

"Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil"

Dec 8, 2009 at 1:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous Coward

"please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line"

Can we all do that..?

Mar 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>