--------
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
>
> Dear Signatory,
>
> This note is to update you on recent developments.
>
> On December 4 and 5, we sent the attached email message to a large
> random sample of APS members. The purpose of the message was
to
> engage a large cross section of members to insist on the APS
> withdrawing its current (2007) statement on climate change, pending
> an independent scientific study and assessment per our petition
> (attached list of 235 signatures). We also wanted to
gauge the
> broader sentiment in the membership community. Because of
this,
> signatories were not addressed directly, although several did
> receive the message on a simple random basis.
>
> As near as we can tell from the response, roughly half of the
> responding members supported the call for the withdrawal of the
2007
> statement. Thus, we can state with supportive evidence that
there
> is a significant basis of support for withdrawal.
Subsequent to
> the emailing, APS leadership took exception to the process of
> engaging the membership and notified all members of its position on
> the matter. This morning I sent APS President Murray and
President-
> elect Callan the attached note which explains problems with the
> current APS course and offers discussions to try to resolve the
> disagreement. Since the ‘measurement phase’ of this
initiative is
> completed, signatories can feel free to express their own
sentiments
> to Murray and Callan, as several have done already.
>
> Also in the past few days, we have been contacted by a
Congressional
> staffer for a Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight
and
> Government Reform who is very interested in the petition. We
have
> provided information and she is in turn in contact with other House
> members and selected Senators. It is too early to say what
effect
> if any this will have on the scientific or political process.
>
> Finally for your information the following pieces have been posted
> by CBS News online:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
>
> In summary it appears that the petition initiative is being noticed
> and gaining momentum. However, there has been no further
progress
> toward the goal of moderating the APS stance. We anticipate a
> protracted process.
>
> The progress and attention we have gained to date would not have
> been possible without your support. It demonstrates the
power of
> cooperative phenomena.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Roger
>
--- CO2 ---
The answer to the key question about the effects of increased CO2
vs. temperature was answered by an article published in July 2009 by
Lindzen & Choi in a peer reviewed journal. It turns out that
increased CO2 does NOT hold more heat.
The scientific paper by Lindzen and Choi can be found
here.
Here is the essentials, the
real measured data shows the OPPOSITE effect, than what is used in all
the IPCC models.
The mismatch
between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen
& Choi (2009).