BPSDB
In “Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!” I discussed how the climate change Deniers spin the ignorance of a few cranks into fantasies of wide spread skepticism, censorship, and a demand for an institutional review. The “there’s a storm of protest, we need a review” tactic is naturally not limited to the American Chemical Society.
The fact that every National Academy of Sciences and important scientific institution and society on the planet naturally accepts and endorses the reality of the scientific facts is a sore point for the Deniers, so anything that can be done to undermine it is in their interest. As such creating the impression that there is a grassroots movement within these institutions and societies “demanding” a review is part of the strategy.
About a year ago there was the unfortunate incident where some blithering idiocy by the ‘Potty Peer”‘ got published in a regional newsletter of the American Physical Society (The Monckton’s Tale, a chronology and here for a debunking of the silliness). Not only was it blown out of proportion, the Denialosphere even went so far as to claim that the APS had actually reversed it’s stance on anthropogenic climate change. Needless to say the whole sorry mess was a major embarrassment for the poor APS (in general physicists are neither fools nor idiots either).
Well guess what is happening now?
“A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.” The Climate Change Climate Change
The signatories are the usual suspects plus some fellow travelers. Both Nature and Science have refused to run the’ open letter (more people who are neither fools nor idiots).
The text of the letter may be found here WARNING: there is an embed interview with Happer that, if you are not fast with the mouse, you might actually hear some of … it’s pretty awful (note also that the site owner is a “birther” and a Monktonophiliac, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about this whole thing).
According to Motl’s Reference Frame, based on a letter which allegedly appeared in Nature, in which Fred Singer says (hearsay enough for you?)
“On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists.”
And indeed it seems to be the case. According to Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of the APS Forum on the History of Physics, Sunday, May 3, 2009
“APS General Councilor Robert Austin presented a proposal, signed by 51 physicists, to make revisions in the already approved APS Statement on Climate Change, basically to adopt an agnostic stance on the scientific evidence for climate change. APS President Cherry Murray will appoint a high-level subcommittee to consider these proposed revisions to the APS Statement on Climate Change and to report to her any recommendations for changes in it, which for approval would follow normal channels”
Three’s a crowd
Now there is actually good reason for all of the academies and institutions to review their declarations on anthropogenic climate change. Many of them were made in 2007 or earlier, based on discussions in 2006, based on what is now quite dated science. We now know the situation to be much worse than was thought at the time. Stronger, more forceful declarations are both in order and would be useful.
If the APS is considering a review it probably should be more in response to the 2008 membership survey about, among other things, APS priorities. The need for more and stronger action on climate change is mentioned repeatedly in the comments (2008-Verbatim-Comments.pdf) with only one suggesting less (and that for reasons that have nothing to do with Denial).
Unfortunately, the mere act of beginning a review is politically 
charged as the Deniers will frame it as being based on doubt rather than certainty. Hopefully academies and societies will be politically astute enough to choose the wording of communications about their processes accordingly, although the Deniers will still spin it regardless.
Expect many more “revolts” and “outpourings of scientists” numbering well into the single digits, but hey … three’s a crowd, right?
In northern Canada, an area of about two million square miles contains rivers that collectively move about 276 cubic miles of fresh water into the ocean every year. … This means that years of both especially low and especially high streamflow (years of particularly low and particularly high rainfall) now happen more often than they did in the middle of the 20th century. Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 282 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
All images are from Global Warming Art
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
This would be the same William Happer who argues that really the earth is in a CO2 famine because 80 million years ago there was more CO2 in the atmosphere.
BTW back then sea levels were 170 meters higher than today.
—-
Happer is Chairman of the Board @ George C. Marshall Institute. Do I need to say more?
—-
I’m not sure what you mean by other 6.
The Nature letter had 6 names total: S. Fred Singer1, Hal Lewis2, Will Happer3, Larry Gould4, Roger Cohen5 & Robert H. Austin6
Of course, GCMI and Singer’s SEPP have long been close, and Austin is in same department as Happer.
Did you mean something else?
Also for fun, another signer was Edwin X. Berry.
Berry’s Website *features* the Kenyan birth certificate.
Also interesting is the support of Monckton, and the chiding of Spokane for signing on with UN ICLEI, in item called “We are partying on the train to Auschwitz”.
Again, I have no worry about APS doing something silly, i.e., Cherry Murray is sensible.
—-
From your blog:
“Both Nature and Science have refused to run the’ open letter (more people who are neither fools nor idiots).”
Sorry Mike, do your homework. Nature ran our letter 23 July.
Bob
Not strictly true.
(Nature 460,457; 2009)
Nature didn’t publish your Open Letter, they published your letter about your open letter. And it was published under “Correspondence”. Nature does also have a “Letters” section but articles appearing in it are usually pretty substantial and subject to review. Correspondence isn’t.
Mike,
Anybody can go to the Nature web site and download an article for a small fee, you don’t need a subscription. You can do it. Try it. It is easy to be a scholar today, and that is the start of academic excellence: knowing the literature and citing it properly.
The Journal Nature is dedicated to the open discussion of scientific questions, and doesn’t resort to ad hominem attacks such as “unbelievably idiotic”, as I hope is also true of the University in the larger sense of the word. They welcomed our letter as part of the discussion.
You seem to find it difficult to comprehend that many very fine physicists, including Nobel Prize winners, [1] question the extrapolations of the climate effects of rising carbon dioxide levels using computer codes many of us don’t trust, and for good reasons.
Active science is always like this, it is a debate amongst honest scholars concerning what we don’t know. What you read in textbooks is dead science in that sense of the word, not the world of active research where the questions are yet to be answered. It shouldn’t be so astounding to you to find that excellent people disagree, it happens all the time. Allowing dissenters to speak without fear of being forced to conform to “real academic standards”, which I guess are set by you, [2] is part of what the University is all about.
—-
Robert Austin, why would any honest scientist spend $32 to read the rubbish that you deniers spread around? You should be ashamed of yourselves, not boasting about how you are great scientists who, though lacking in any actual experience in the field, distort it with your lies.
Luckily, your small band of dishonest scientists is well known and honest people will not be suckered into spending well earned (unlike some people I can mention) money on your lies.
You obviously do not understand the difference between honest dissent and outright lies.
Actually I think the cost is $18 to read the letter.
But since the letter only contains 200 words it isn’t worth it. 🙂
Further,
More on this (and some interesting discussion) at Rabett Run.
S2,
Thanks for the update and link to more. 🙂
Via Rabett Run, there is a remarkable analysis of the petition signers by John Mashey on desmogblog.
He looks into the demographics of the signers (e.g. 86% were born before 1950, 98% were male), the possible/plausible social connections between them, who signed what petition (if any), links with the George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland or SEPP, and rounds of with brief notes on each of the individual signers.
It must have taken him ages to do.
—-
Ah – sorry about that, Mike.
Deniers spelled with a capital “D” and Global Warmers always spelled correctly. It is veritable wonder you are able to be cogent and mistaken in almost every sentence.
—-
Intelligence is a two way street. If CO2 increases from 1ppm to 1.1ppm, is that a 10% increase, or a .0001% increase? Both could be correct depending on the scientific context. Yet in this blog the answer depends on your affiliation, your ability to marginalize, and your politics, which all give the same answer: 10%.
—-