Sunday, March 23, 2014 ... //

APS reviews its AGW statement again: 1/2 of witnesses are skeptics

Among the scientific disciplines, the concentrated climate panic is confined to the specialized interdisciplinary clique of self-described "climate scientists", a scholarly discipline that was pretty much created and greatly inflated with the very purpose of spreading the climate hysteria and to make it look "connected to science".

Actual scientists in disciplines that have existed before this political movement became strong are usually neutral or skeptical about the climate panic. This includes people in the adjacent disciplines such as meteorology, geology – and physics itself. Physicists should be particularly immune towards this kind of brainwashing. After all, when Galileo Galilei kickstarted physics, he was fighting against similar religious attempts to "constrain" the human thought.

Some physicists have been very honest and outspoken; others less so. The disappointing physicists' attitudes were particularly embarrassing in the case of the American Physical Society (APS) that actually became one of the most mindless mouthpieces of the climate alarmist movement. Things have a chance to change again.

Five years ago, APS began to review its offensive 2007 "incontrovertible" statement about the climate change issue, after Will Happer of Princeton and his colleagues requested such a review in their influential letter. Nothing much has come out of the review, however. APS fat cats remained faithful to the demagogic proclamation.

In 2010, Hal Lewis resigned from the APS because of its position on the climate change issues. The alarmists in the APS didn't care; they arrogantly recommended Lewis to learn science from an unhinged secretary called Tawanda.

In 2011, Lewis was followed by Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever. None of these events mattered for the general attitudes of APS to the AGW dispute.

There is a new, more realistic chance that these things will improve. As James Delingpole, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, and perhaps others noticed two days ago, the APS is organizing its climate change statement workshop.

You should look at the

APS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios (APS.org server)
The witnesses who were speaking in front of the committee included
Ben Santer (famous for planning to beat crap out of Pat Michaels),
Isaac Held (an atmospheric scientist),
William Collins (climate modeller),
but also
John Christy (UAH),
Richard Lindzen (MIT),
Judith Curry (Georgia Tech).
Let us flatteringly count lukewarmer Judith Curry as a full-fledged skeptic – she may deserve it for her courage ;-) – and you may see that 1/2 of the witnesses are climate realists. I am not sure how such a diverse group will agree about anything but they should try.

It's no guaranteed win but let's hope that among similar political scholarly organizations, physicists may regain their famous independence and integrity and serve as the role models for others. The composition of the witnesses looks somewhat promising.

I actually don't understand how it's possible that a collection of witnesses as promising as this one could have been appointed in a world that is still flooded by people like John Cook with their delusions such as "97% of scientists support the climate hysteria". Do you understand what happened? Why couldn't Tawandas veto such a review just like they did in the past?

OK, in physics, 97% has thankfully been reduced to 50% by the APS and we're only in the middle of the evolution.

The video above shows a hot and brainwashed babe, Alli Welton, who confronted the current president of Harvard University Drew Gilpin Faust at Harvard Yard. Faust is clearly not sufficiently alarmist for these babes – she knows that one can't ban (or even divest from) the fossil fuels, so she's in trouble, see Think Progress or Salon.com where the writer decides that global warming is caused by Harvard. ;-)

Just compare Faust's position with the mirror situation of the pro-life activist vs pornography academic parasite. In principle, Faust may feel the same as the porn teacher – but justifiably so – but on campuses, it is not possible to assault holy cows such as "divestment from fossil fuels".

Thrin Short's sign was stolen. Imagine what would happen if someone stole Alli Welton's sign! ;-)

snail feedback (15) :

The way I understand it is Christy, Curry, and Lindzen along with three warmists were allowed to present their views at a workshop. A subcommittee holding the workshop will be deciding what changes, if any, will be made to the APS statement.

Reading of the transcript of the workshop indicates to me little common ground was identified other than on trivialities. It wouldn't surprise me to hear the APS is making no changes to its statement. That would allow them to avoid the requirement to present a new statement to the entire APS membership for comment.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm

Let us hope that the new "official" position of the PPS will not be based on what is considered to be an "acceptable" opinion to ones friends and colleagues throughout the universities but rather upon what the science and the evidence actually supports. In other words, that the members of this new committee act as rational scientists rather than as social beings who want to belong to the cool crowd.

I don't think the description of th organization of the APS committee is quite right. Under one of the permanent committees of the APS, an ad hoc committee has been formed of some half dozen senior members of the APS, including Dr. Susan Seestrom. It is this ad bhoc committee that was briefed by the 3 warmists and the 3 skeptics. Based on almost nothing, I think the lady to watch is Dr. Susan Seestrom.

Hey Lubos, I'm a long time admirer.
I've started a blog that you may be interested in.
Post 1 surveyed the actual scientific
literature (not the imaginary one Pediatricians and many others believe
must surely exist) and showed the literature incontrovertibly
establishes that vaccines in the first months of life, especially
containing aluminum, are dangerous. Post 2 remarked on how the
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies wrote a 270pp survey
last year exactly on the question of safety of the vaccine series, and
managed to ignore all of the dozens of mainstream journal papers cited and linked
in my survey while finding no other cogent papers on the subject (but
discussing large numbers of papers on strawman issues such as MMR and autism, sound familiar?)

Post 4 points out that the examples of Vaccinism and Global Warmism
empirically falsify the mental model almost all of us have of how people
such as Pediatricians and Climate Scientists form their opinions. It
discusses instead the psychological model of Gustav Le Bon (1895) which
explains the observed data much better, including aspects such as the
punishing of deniers and the religious intolerance. Le Bon’s book, The
Crowd, although not widely cited today, was arguably the text that had
the most influence on the shape of the 20th century since it served as a
manual for, among others, Teddy Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler, Lenin and
Stalin, Mussolini, Sigmund Freud, and Madison Avenue.

Later posts will address methods to help protect against these kind of catastrophic conceptual break downs in the future.

http://whyarethingsthisway.com/

Is there anyone out there wealthy enough to mail the entire APS membership, let them know what is happening, and recommend they drop membership if they donot agree with the outcome?

The realists have science on their side. The warmists (or anti-realists) have lack of science on their side. Hardly a fair fight unless the referee has been paid off.

The fix is in as Obama and the Progressives are desperate to push their green agenda.

The “Free Speech Movement” exploded on the UC Berkeley campus in 1964 because the students (and some outsiders) wanted to peacefully exercise freedom of expression on the Berkeley campus. The demonstrators won the day and the precedent was clearly established for Miss Short on the UC Santa Barbara campus fifty years later.
It is appalling that Miller-Young was unaware of that history and unaware of the basic freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution. Regardless of her questionable academic qualifications these shortcomings ought to disqualify her from a faculty position on any UC campus.

There was an attempt to get the local university to offer a course on Astrology. They didn't, so why do they have professorships of some these other non-subjects?

Maybe nature will revenge the hubris of AGW. A few more winters in the US like the present one should do it :).

Maybe characteristics will vengeance the hubris of AGW. A few more winter seasons in the US like the existing one should do it :).

NyLotto

Yes, well, her claim to have the "moral right" to violate free speech rights may fool the Chancellors, but it won't fool the judge in court. And one of the trends in recent years has been the expansion of jurisdiction of courts and police on university campuses -- it is a far cry from the days when medieval university privileges meant that the university would judge and police itself, a system that we still had when I went to college.

"Ought to disqualify her", yes, certainly true. But with the distressing growth of the PC movement in US universities, a lot of us doubt that she will be disqualified as she ought to be. There are, after all, a LOT of things that ought happen but do not. Miller-Young, for example, should never have been given the bogus degrees she got nor should she ever have been appointed an "associate professor" in such nonsense subjects.