... as if there were no political--more precisely economic--interests informing the anti climate change forces, which are, interestingly enough, confined not merely to the right wing, but almost exclusively the right wing *in America* (see http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php)
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of marx@phy.ilstu.edu [marx@phy.ilstu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:39 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
Daniel,
You are not correct in your assessment. The APS showed no interest in examining the science in this
matter. Their decision was/is solely based on politics, as were the so-called investigations into
ClimateGate. Most, unbiased scientists that take the time to examine all of the documents and the
peer-reviewed scientific literature (not the IPCC reports) will arrive at the same conclusion as Professor
Lewis. The problem is that most scientists have difficulty imagining that the so-called climate experts
have engaged in poor quality scientific work, even to the point of fabricating data. There is an effort
underway to significantly alter the land-based measurements and data sets to get the desired results.
None of this is to deny that climate change is an ongoiong process, but rather a demand that higher
standards for data collection and analysis be used and that the entire process be transparent. We
have a huge number of people engaged in quasi-scientific work to promote a political agenda, rather
than being engaged in truth-seeking.