## Thursday, November 12, 2009

### APS fat cats stick to the sinking AGW bandwagon

Bad news which is however hardly surprising.

The APS has prepared a negative response to the letter by 160 physicists including Ivar Giaever and Will Happer who wanted the society to return to its scientific roots when it comes to the topic of climate change and who proposed a new climate policy statement.
What was the procedure leading to the official APS reply? The current APS chairwoman Ms Merry Cherry (or so) constructed a "reliable" six-person committee that was asked to recommend the APS Council what is the right way to respond.

Not too surprisingly, the committee recommended to say "No," and the APS Council - whatever it means - "almost unanimously" decided to reject the proposal to update the APS statement on climate change on behalf of all the APS members.

The radical alarmist blogosphere started a new campaign to sling mud upon the authors of the proposed new APS policy statement. For example, the not-so-gentle men at a Nature alarmist blog think that Will Happer has been discredited because top scientist Al Gore effectively fired him back in 1993 when Gore was the U.S. vice-president.

That event must really weaken Happer's credibility - especially because in a sane world, prominent scientist Will Happer would strongly influence these matters while Al Gore would be severely punished for his unacceptable political interventions to science.

Joshua B. Halpern of Howard University is also promoting an analysis that tries to show that most signatories of the letter are mature or older (what a sin!) and many of them even dare to prefer the Republican or Libertarian Party over the Democrat Party.

That must be the ultimate crime in the contemporary Obamaland and especially in the APS, right? Is it really hard to see that these climate "scientists" behave just like the brown shirts while Merry Cherry and Barack Obama are giving them a similar type of institutionalized backing as Adolf Hitler was giving to the brown shirts?

#### 1 comment:

1. It would be an interesting exercise to subject the climate alarmists to the same kind of sociological analysis as is applied to the "deniers" by this tedious paper (the 128 page APS "report") -- ignoring the fact that this kind of analysis is clearly irrelevant to the truth of their claims. Certainly, they (the alarmists) form a well-funded community of mutual interest, with the billions of \$ spent on "global warming" research (3 orders of magnitude greater than the funding available to the "deniers".)

The APS report, however, simply assumes that the only motives useful to examine are those of the "deniers" -- the motives of the alarmists are presumed to be a god-like devotion to truth. From my experiences with the scientific community and grant writing, I find this improbable, to say the least.

How can presumably intelligent people create an elaborate argument so obviously bogus and not sense something amiss? Perhaps they are all venal lackeys of the power structure, but that also seems unlikely (although not impossible, if there has been selection going on as I suspect there has).

The whole idea that science progress is dependent on a set of intellectual and moral supermen and women is a bogus idea anyway. It reminds me of the arrogance of the Collectivist who thinks that the economy can be guided and controlled by a select few given sufficient power over their fellow men. Free economies do quite well despite the fact that they are too complex for anyone to comprehend. Perhaps science should be looked at similarly and we should quit trying to identify the SuperMan.

Perhaps a positive side-effect of the (soon to be) Global Warming fiasco will be a healthy skepticism of self-proclaimed "scientific authorities" by the lay public.

(Which still doesn't answer the vexing question of how people can be so willfully, transparently stupid.)