Climategate and the American Physical Society
James
Climategate and the American Physical Society
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 cca...@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
erschro...@gmail.com
> Friday, December 04, 2009
> Climategate and the American Physical Society
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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
Here's an interesting observation:
"When was the last time you got paid $20 grand for a research paper,
Judy? I never have. Singer got paid $20,000 by the Tobacco Institute
to deny that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous (something you
apparently agree with, given your DaveHitt.com link in comment #47)
and he worked with and for people who got paid by Philip Morris to
deny that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous.
The APS has 46000 members. Based on the Six Americas survey, there
should be 7-18% of APS members (assuming they track the U.S.
population at large) who disagree with the APS stance on climate
disruption. That’s between 3200 and 8300 physicists. That there are
only 160 APS scientists who signed on to the letter suggests that APS
physicists actually understand the science and agree that the Earth is
warming as a result of human influence in much larger numbers than the
general public (as would be expected). 160 is 0.3% of the APS
membership."
> Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
>
Oh wow, that's great! At least for once you're not hiding the
affiliation.
BTW, there were the same ones who petitioned the APS a few months ago
to change its policy. The APS said "no."
> 5880610-6524606624559963024?l=infoproc.blogspot.com
> < 1KViewDownload
David Wright, an APS fellow who co-directs the Union of Concerned
Scientists' global security program, isn't convinced the organization
should drop its climate policy, and replied to the letter with a "no"
in his tagline.
He also wrote the Society's incoming president Curtis Callan, the
target of the lobbying campaign, and suggested that if the group is
reviewing its climate change statement, he hoped it "will strengthen
it based on the new scientific evidence that has come out since the
original statement was written."
An APS committee just rejected calls to alter its statement on climate
change last month.
Earl Evleth
c3a76eb3-0cb4-4f97...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An APS committee just rejected calls to alter its statement on climate
> change last month.
The American Chemical Society, (to which I am a member) has an official
position on Global warming. There is some opposition to that position
and some comment has been expressed in Chemical and Engineering News.
But I view the opposition as few in number but vocally active.
I agree with the ACS position.
****
ACS Position Statement
Global Climate Change
ACS Statement on Global Climate Change
Summary
The ACS statement on global climate change reviews the science and
recommends action on global climate issues.
Recent Work
ACS Joins Leading Scientific Organizations Reaffirm Consensus on Climate
Change in a Letter to Senators 10/21/09
ACS writes to Senators Boxer & Inhofe to outline climate change legislation
principles 9/25/09
Past Actions
Endorses S. 1387, the Greenhouse Gas Registry Act 9/18/08
ACS Endorses S. 3036, Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act 6/2/08
ACS Position
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated
that the Earth�s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing
atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles
(IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate
trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is
urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially
disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions
from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized
by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major
scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003),
the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National
Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).
This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends
actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.
Climate Change Impacts
The effects of projected unmitigated climate change on key Earth system
components, ecological systems and human society over the next fifty years
will be profound and, quite possibly, irreversible (IPCC, 2007). Higher
surface temperatures will severely impact many land-based life forms,
damaging vulnerable ecosystems and endangering key plant and animal species.
Sea level is rising and the ocean is acidifying; the first threatens coastal
habitations and ecosystems, the second will have profound effects on marine
ecosystems. Snowfall and snowmelt patterns are changing and rainfall
patterns may also be unstable, threatening fresh water supplies in
vulnerable regions. Increases in severe weather events are very likely, with
increasing damage due to floods, drought, and heat waves. We are, in effect,
in the midst of a vast experiment with the Earth�s climate�with uncertain,
but likely quite unpleasant, outcomes.
The costs of unchecked climate change in economic loss, human misery, and
loss of ecosystem services are likely to be enormous. The United Nations
Environment Programme estimated that climate change could cost world gross
domestic product from $150 to $300 billion annually unless strong efforts
are made by developed and developing nations to curb greenhouse gas
emissions (UNEP, 2002). More recently, the Stern Review suggested that: "the
overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at
least 5% of global GDP [ca. $2 trillion] each year, now and forever" (Stern,
2007). Additional costs due to climate driven increases of refugees,
illness, malnutrition, and conflicts over water, energy and food resources
could easily dwarf the more easily estimated GDP losses. The costs of lost
ecosystem services are difficult to compute, but may ultimately threaten the
planet's capacity to sustain the current, much less the projected,
population density (Daily et al, 2000).
Recommendations
1. Earth Systems Science
Successfully addressing the challenges of global climate change requires
enhanced understanding of Earth system dynamics. Climate change is a very
complex phenomenon involving the coupled physical, chemical and biological
processes affecting the atmosphere, land surfaces and the oceans. The U.S.
has been a leader in Earth system and climate change research, but funding
for these activities has dropped dramatically over the past five years,
slowing progress in vital areas of atmospheric chemistry, dynamics and
radiation transport, cloud and aerosol chemistry and physics, ocean
biogeochemistry and dynamics, glacial, ice cap and sea ice dynamics,
hydrology, ecology, soil microbiology, multi-scale Earth system modeling and
other key disciplines. The ability to quantify trends in climate parameters
and resulting impacts on geological and ecological systems will require the
enhancement and maintenance of sophisticated Earth observation satellites as
well comprehensive in situ atmospheric, oceanic and ecological sensor
systems.
Recommendation 1 - Re-invigorate and fully fund a comprehensive U.S.
research program to better predict the impacts of climate change on
regional, national and global scales and to allow the systematic analyses
needed to effectively design and evaluate mitigation and adaptation
strategies. Cooperation and collaboration with other nations on both an
aggressive Earth systems research agenda and the necessary Earth observing
systems should be emphasized.
2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Progress to reduce U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the
scale and impact of accelerating climate change must start now using current
technological capabilities. Opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions include
enhanced fuel economy for on-road and off road vehicles, better insulated
and more efficiently heated and cooled buildings, more efficient lighting,
and more convenient and available mass transit.
Opportunities also exist to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion
by substituting more sustainable biomass based fuels and by adopting
non-combustion energy sources based on solar thermal, solar photovoltaic,
wind, or tidal power. Successful deployment of enhanced energy conservation
and fossil fuel substitution technologies will be expedited by increased
research and development funding and shifts in government subsidies and
incentives away from fossil fuel producers and users and to energy
conservation efforts and more sustainable energy sources. Coal-fueled and
nuclear electrical power generation systems may also be part of CO2
reduction strategies if effective and economic means to sequester CO2
emissions from coal combustion or advanced coal processing are developed for
the former and if fuel diversion, spent fuel disposal, and power plant
security issues are resolved for the latter.
Successful efforts to reduce petroleum and natural gas consumption through
conservation or sustainable-fuel substitution will not only reduce net CO2
emissions, but also reduce reliance on fuel sources that are increasingly
insecure for both economic and geopolitical reasons. Reduction in reliance
on combustion driven energy systems will also contribute to both better air
quality and reduced warming.
Many opportunities exist to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse emissions, including
biogenic CH4 from landfills, agriculture and other land use practices and
biogenic N2O from agricultural and non-agricultural fertilizer use, air
pollutant deposition and waste disposal. Geological CH4 emissions associated
with natural gas, petroleum and coal production, refining and distribution
can also be reduced. Key knowledge needed to design, evaluate and implement
better controls for theses non-CO2 greenhouse gases is likely to come from
the enhanced Earth systems research called for in Recommendation 1. Reducing
CH4 emissions also reduces secondary O3 and CO2 production and reducing N2O
emissions reduces stratospheric ozone depletion.
It is certain that there will be no single solution to climate change
challenges. Individual technologies may make more sense in particular
situations or locales (e.g., solar or wind power). Others may merit national
implementation (fuel efficiency standards). With adequate R&D funding, we
may also be able to develop additional novel technologies and processes to
mitigate climate change. For example, success in green chemistry and
nanotechnology may dramatically reduce energy and materials use in the
future. Several U.S. states and major municipalities have already set
significant greenhouse reduction goals and implemented steps to meet them.
The federal government needs to catch up with these forward-looking regions.
Enhanced research in the fields of energy efficiency and conservation,
alternative and renewable energy sources, climate change adaptation,
pollution prevention, and carbon sequestration also serves other important
national goals, including economic prosperity, a high quality of life, and
environmental protection. Developing and deploying these technologies will
likely reduce energy costs, increase productivity, improve the nation�s
energy independence, improve air and water quality, and reduce environmental
hazards, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These benefits
are also sought by other nations opening up the potential of new export
markets that could improve our nation�s trade balance.
Recommendation 2a � The U.S. should immediately adopt nationwide goals for
rapid and deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and
develop effective economic drivers to achieve these goals. Options such as
emission cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, or emissions taxes need to be
devised, tested and implemented on a national basis. The U.S. should work
closely with all major greenhouse gas emitter nations to secure their
commitment to similar greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Recommendation 2b � The U.S. should significantly raise its public and
private sector investments in technologies to mitigate climate change
through economically viable energy conservation, biomass fuel substitution
for fossil fuels, carbon sequestration and non-fossil fuel based energy
sources. Key actions include
Federal government revaluation of subsidies and incentives to allow
advanced energy technologies to operate on an even playing field with the
current, heavily subsidized energy sources.
Enhanced federal R&D funding to develop both innovative energy sources with
low net greenhouse gas emission and energy-efficient technologies and
processes for the industrial, agricultural and transportation sectors.
Business and industry should be encouraged to use private sector funding for
development of enhanced low-emission, energy technologies and
energy-efficient processes. Additional venture funding must be provided to
commercialize new energy-efficient technologies. The growing international
demand for advanced, sustainable energy and energy-efficient process
technologies in both developed and developing countries represents a major
market that U.S. based companies should make every effort to serve, reaping
economic benefits for themselves and environmental benefits for everyone.
Comprehensive evaluation of the life cycle environmental, health, safety,
economic and social impacts of new technologies and processes before and
during their implementation to ensure they help solve climate change issues
without creating unanticipated societal and environmental problems.
3. Adaptation to Global Change
The current levels of long-lived atmospheric greenhouse gases and the levels
of increased CO2 and heat absorbed by the world�s oceans ensures that the
climate will continue to warm for decades, even if greenhouse gas and
absorbing particle emissions are scaled back to more sustainable levels
(IPCC, 2007). Thus, our nation and the world must adapt to inevitable
changes in water supplies, agricultural productivity, severe weather
patterns, sea-level rise and ecosystem viabilities. In order to devise and
implement effective adaptation strategies we need to know more and to better
communicate what we know to all levels of human society.
The enhanced research and development activities called for in
Recommendation 1 will help us better predict the circumstances to which we
must adapt. Additional research will be needed to understand how to enable
society to survive and thrive under new climate conditions. The public will
need to recognize and understand the challenges that need to be faced and to
summon the social and political will to identify, evaluate and implement
appropriate responses. Public media and educational institutions at all
levels will need to be able to explain current and anticipated global change
effects and potential response strategies.
Recommendation 3a � Collaboration at every level of government and with
other nations should be encouraged to assess current global climate change
impacts at regional, national and global scales and to share ways to
successfully cope with climate change effects.
Recommendation 3b � The federal government should fund research on methods
of adapting to climate change-induced conditions affecting infrastructure,
agriculture, and the basic habitability of severely affected areas.
Recommendation 3c � Printed, video and web-based curricular materials
examining global climate change and Earth system science, natural and
societal impacts of global climate change, and ways individuals and
organizations can adopt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation
options available to regions, states and municipalities should be developed
and utilized at all educational levels, from elementary school through
college. Media materials addressing these topics should also be developed
and posted on continuously updated web sites that are widely advertised.
Annual reports on global change issues should be prepared for the Congress
and the Nation to stimulate and support informed dialog about how to best
deal with climate change.
References
AAAS, 2007, AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change, American Association for
the Advancement of Science,
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_
statement.pdf
AGU, 2003, Human Impacts on Climate, American Geophysical Union,
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtm
l
AMS, 2007, Climate Change, American Meteorological Society,
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
Daily, G.C., et al., 2000, The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value,
Science 289, 395-396.
IPCC, 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/
NA, 2005, Joint science academies� statement: Global response to climate
change, http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Stern, N., 2007, The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press.
UNEP, 2002, Climate Change & the Financial Services Industry, United Nations
Environment Programme, July 2002.
old_sys...@yahoo.com
the APS example, with who did what, when, thinktank involvement,
social network,, demographics of the signers (not liek APS as a
whole), see teh PDF @
http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed
(or wait a few days until I've finished the update). It's the same
bunch of people.