Roger Cohen's comments were not red but rather black in the message I got.
This makes it difficult to tell what were or weren't his comments. Please
resubmit with clearer demarcation of Cohen versus APS.
Thanks,
Don
Dr. Donald Polvani
Adjunct Faculty, Physics
Anne Arundel Community College
Arnold, MD
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of
marx@phy.ilstu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:42 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: [Phys-l] response from APS and those petitioning the APS
Please find the press release with Roger Cohen's comments interspersed in
red.
Someone made the comment earlier that physicists should just rely on climate
scientists
and not evaluate the science for themselves. I wholeheartedly disagree. I
think that if
we are interested we can look into the literature and study the data and
methods and
come to our own conclusions. That's what I invite my students to do and my
colleagues.
________________________________________
October 12, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
American Physical Society
Washington, D.C.
202-662-8702
tjohnson@aps.org
APS Comments on Harold Lewis´ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a recent letter to American Physical Society (APS)
President
Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department,
Harold Lewis,
emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
announced that he
was resigning his APS membership.
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.
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.
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.
We have yet to receive a response to our Petition, signed by 267 including
nearly
100 Fellows, and delivered last spring, on the independent study and
assessment.
Dr. Lewis´ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting
financially from climate
change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the
elected leaders of the
Society have a monetary stake in such funding.
The chair of the POPA Committee that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on
climate change, with its Appendix, sits on the science advisory board of a
large
international bank. The bank has major investments in "green enterprises"
whose
viability depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions . One of the
members of
the Kleppner Committee that reviewed the 2007 Statement served on the
committee
while under consideration for Chief Scientist at BP. The position had been
vacated
when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the DOE. Soon the Kleppner
Committee
report in late 2009, this committee member took the BP job.
Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and
therefore the
vast majority of the Society´s members derive no personal benefit from such
research support.
This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies
such as
the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor´s office that the APS will
continue to
support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of taxpayer dollars
into
research that must support the alarmist credo.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all
reputable scientists agree
with the following observations:
· 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
· The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS
continues to
recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of
global warming and
climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon
loading remain
uncertain.
This is much better than the 2007 Statement itself. However, the phrase
"climate
disruptions" is noteworthy because it is the new buzzword recently
introduced by
Science Advisor John Holdren http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-
isdead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/ , evidently enabling
advocates to assign
any unusual weather event to human causes. It is curious that that the APS
press
release happens to echo this new phrase.
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."
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.
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit
opinions from its
membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from
APS members,
the Society´s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS
climate change
statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council
overwhelmingly endorsed
the reaffirmation.
Never mind that the Panel on Public Affairs is chaired by an individual
whose
research funding stream (from BP) depends on continued global warming alarm.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS
is in the process
of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage
exchange of
information on the physics of climate.
Never mind that the TG was proposed in a petition organized by a small group
of
members that included Dr. Lewis. Also, the Council has not yet approved a
TG;
therefore it is not in the process of being "organized." It is being
"considered." What
we have here is the first attempt to co-opt the TG for PR purposes. This
before it has
even been approved by the Council.
Read the APS Climate Change Statement and
Commentary: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.
The last thing I would refer anyone to is this Statement.
About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading
physics organization,
representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national
laboratories, and
industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in
College Park, MD
(Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.
Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l