Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/18/2009 10:18:13 AM PST by Yollopoliuhqui
Revolt Inside American Physical Society Against Climate Fraud
December 18, 2009 (LPAC)—Some very prominent members of the American Physical Society are circulating an open letter by e-mail, asking the Society to withdraw a position statement adopted on 2007 that supported the theory of global warming. The initiators of the letter include Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton; Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara; Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton; Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford; and Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil.
The authors of the open letter have tried before, to get the APS management to withdraw the 2007 statement supporting global warming theory because it was based on fraudulent science. They were unsuccessful, and the APS management has also refused to bring the issue to the membership. Establishment science is circling the wagons to protect this fraud. Excerpts of the text of the open letter follow:
Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:
This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.
By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership....
What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming ... that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)
We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.
None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.
If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS.
Science fraud bump.
Here is some interesting relavent statements by APS
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/index.cfm
99.6 “WHAT IS SCIENCE?”
(Adopted by Council on November 14, 1999)
Science extends and enriches our lives, expands our imagination and liberates us from the bonds of ignorance and superstition. The American Physical Society affirms the precepts of modern science that are responsible for its success.
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.
The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to:
1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.
2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.
Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.
97.4 OPEN FLOW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
The open flow of scientific data is essential to the progress of science. The American Physical Society is therefore greatly concerned by proposed legislation and treaties which would impose, through copyrighting of data bases, severe restrictions upon the fair use of scientific data, the generation of which was supported by public funds. The Society supports a balanced approach to copyright laws, which maintains the traditional principles of fair use and of expiration of copyright after a reasonable period, while still protecting intellectual property rights of authors and publishers.
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Note that support for experiments like the Large Hadron Collider while supported by APS should be shut down because of how much energy the accelerator consumes.
http://askanexpert.web.cern.ch/AskAnExpert/en/Accelerators/LHCenvironment-en.html
What is the LHC power consumption?
It is around 120 MW (230 MW for all CERN), which corresponds more or less to the power consumption for households in the Canton (State) of Geneva. Assuming an average of 270 working days for the accelerator (the machine will not work in the winter period), the
estimated yearly energy consumption of the LHC in 2009 is about 800,000 MWh. This includes site base load and the experiments.
The total yearly cost for running the LHC is therefore, about 19 million Euros.
I’d be willing to pass on the link if it wasn’t a Larouche site.
No suprise that the hard science types, namely physicist, are on board. They know how pathetic the “science” of most climatologists really is. They also understand things like absorption spectra and magnetic fields...
The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to:
1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.
2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.
Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.
Jeez, c’mon people, go where the data lead you, not where you’ve been channeled by rumor and innuendo..
You know what, people are just going to have to vet LaRouche for themselves. It’s not like his web sites are hard to find. It’s where you discover his actual positions on issues in his own words rather than censored and decontextualized by his knee jerk detractors.
The guy is a brilliant economist who regularly meets with lower level heads of state throuhout the world in an enviously independent manner. He should be the object of attention by anyone with an independent mind. I’ll say independent one more time in case the concept of independence is lost on people here.
I have been a member of APS since 1980.
Sorry if I was unclear in my sarcasm. My reply was meant to be. It’s outrageous to me that some of the so called scientific community is actually supporting CRU and other entities who refuse to honor freedom of info requests and throw scorn and ridicule on everyone who disagrees with them.
BTW, some of those are BIG names in physics. As in Einstein and Hawkings big? Arguably.
As a scientist, I think it is outrageous that the APS goes against its own principles destroying the credibility of science which is the organization's reason for existence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.