Renowned Physicist Responds to American Physical Society's Response

[IanC]

(APS) 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.



(Lewis) 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.




(APS) 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.

(Lewis) We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:

Signatures: APS Council Study

…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 Members Bombard Councilors with Messages on Climate Change . “[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 .

(APS) ■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.



(Lewis) 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 A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE BERN MODEL 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.

(APS) 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.”

(Lewis) 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.

read the whole thing at APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation | Watts Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

Piffle.

And the whole of the Society, and the other Scientific Societies will pay zero attention to the silly response to the APS statement. For it is similiar to all of the other Scientific Societies statements. But we are supposed to listen to non-experts with a political axe to grind.

The Royal Society statement came out with all kinds of fanfare about how it was going to demolish AGW, and then when read, only reinforces what has been said in prior statements.

 

[westwall]

Piffle.

And the whole of the Society, and the other Scientific Societies will pay zero attention to the silly response to the APS statement. For it is similiar to all of the other Scientific Societies statements. But we are supposed to listen to non-experts with a political axe to grind.

The Royal Society statement came out with all kinds of fanfare about how it was going to demolish AGW, and then when read, only reinforces what has been said in prior statements.

"Experts" who have to resort to manipulating data are not experts fool. That's why you are going to see many , many more societies revolt against the AGW "consensus".

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Going to hold you to that prediction, dumbass. I predict they will revolt in exactly the same manner as the Royal Society, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

 

[Old Rocks]

You mean like these experts

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

 

[Old Rocks]

(APS) 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.



(Lewis) 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.




(APS) 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.

(Lewis) We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:

Signatures: APS Council Study

…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 Members Bombard Councilors with Messages on Climate Change . “[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 .

(APS) ■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.



(Lewis) 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 A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE BERN MODEL 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.

(APS) 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.”

(Lewis) 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.

read the whole thing at APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation | Watts Up With That?

LOL. Lindzen, the first name on the list. A witness for the tobacco companies on how good tobacco is for you.

And published, of course, in the blog of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman who has been caught in innumerable lies.

 

[westwall]

Yes that is a prediction olfraud. Looks like I stung you again I can allways tell when it hurts, you post and post and post trying to bury your agony under a pile of drivel.