Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

[marx@phy.ilstu.edu]

As scientists, we must insist that the climate scientists are doing good science and that their
interpretations are consistent with results that can be obtained from the best available data.  We have
an obligation to closely examine methods and data to ensure that it is correct. This has largely not
been the case to date, with few exceptions.

It takes a lot of time and effort to do a serious examination of the peer-reviewed literature, so this
cannot be done by anyone simply taking a cursory look at a few graphs and making a determination
from them.

There has been much political rhetoric on both sides of this issue, but the scientists that have
petitioned the APS are asking for a truly scientific discussion of the methods and data to make a
proper assessment that the community of physicists can be sure is not politically biased, but rather
based on well established scientific methods.






On 11 Oct 2010 at 9:44, A. John Mallinckrodt wrote:

> ... 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)
> Another item worth considering:
>
> The Montford Delusion
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
>
> John Mallinckrodt
> Cal Poly Pomona
>
> ________________________________________
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnotphysics.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.
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database: 422/3190 - Release Date: 10/11/10