The American Physical Society (APS) was therefore embarrassed on November 18th, 2007 when its bodies approved an alarmist statement that was much more constructive and issue-oriented than the statements of many institutions outside physics but it was still a scientists' variation of the same blinded, biased, irrational hysteria.
It shouldn't be surprising that members around Will Happer, a renowned Princeton physicist (see the picture), wrote an
The petition has been signed by
more than 50 well-known past and current APS members, including a Nobel prize winner.Add your name if you are one, too.
Happily, Nature just published a letter from six members that informs that the APS is currently reviewing its 2007 statement:
Petitioning for a revised statement on climate changeSee a discussion about this topic at Anthony Watts' blog.
By S. Fred Singer, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, Roger Cohen & Robert H. Austin
We write in response to your issue discussing "the coming climate crunch", including the Editorial 'Time to act' (Nature 458, 10771078; 2009). We feel it is alarmist.
We are among more than 50 current and former members of the American Physical Society (APS) who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change (see open letter at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u; APS statement at http://tinyurl.com/56zqxr). The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence. It requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.
On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues.
American Chemical Society
Rudy Baum (his personal page) who penned a disgraceful (but these days, no longer "exceptional") alarmist screed for Chemical and Engineering News (mostly directed against us, the climate change "deniers" or "CCDs") a week ago was surprised that nearly all letters (click and read them, they're great, but there have been many more unpublishable ones that were not published!) about the ACS publication were concerned with his screed, and virtually all of them sharply disagreed with him, especially with his patronizing tone that is supported by no beef.
At least he claims that he was surprised that the ACS members and professional chemists - those whose job is genuine chemistry rather than fearmongering - realize that the climate is complicated and requires further research, not intimidation, that the hysterical climate science is pursued by people who are either corrupt or unteachable simpletons (or both).
Well, if he knew at least something about the climate - and this discussion - he would know better. Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views.
Hat tip: Rudi