The number of anti-science decisions the federal government has made in recent years is staggering: axing the...
Some of the same agenda-driven triflers who tried earlier this fall to push the American Physical Society into the climate change denial camp are at it again, leveraging the stolen East Anglia University emails to try to get the APS to reconsider its position on climate.
Led by Princeton physicists including Bob Austin and Will Happer (inset), the group has sent an open letter to physicists urging them to join a letter writing campaign encouraging the APS to abandoned what Happer’s mob is calling “corrupt science.”
Full disclosure credit: they actually list Roger Cohen, former manager of Strategic Planning for Exxon, among their primary signatories. At least there is no confusion about who’s side they’re on.
H/T, as ever, to John Mashey.
In the realm of silly petitions, manufactured by a small, agenda-driven group and leveraged to extend the fiction of a legitimate scientific controversy, no document has ever been studied to this degree.
Thanks to John Mashey, a technology consultant, entrepreneur, member of the American Physical Society and tireless researcher, this document lies completely exposed as another phony front group play for attention.
With characteristic attention to the facts, Dennis Avery, Monsanto’s man in the organic food debate, killed both climate change and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a post yesterday on his Centre for Global Food Issues website.
“Consensus on man-made warming is shattering,” Avery announced, basing this wild-eyed overstatement on last week’s story that:
Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Societ, just published “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (My emphasis.)
This whole story is afloat in hogwash, a fact that APS President Arthur Bienenstock has been at pains to point out.
Tim Lambert at Deltoid offers a cursory scientific critique of Chris Walter (the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley)'s recent newsletter submission to the American Physical Society. Lambert apologizes that he has only first-year physics, but notes, rightfully, that Monckton can make no such claim.
Even more entertaining is the shirty letter that Monckton himself penned to the APS after they added a note to his article making it clear that it was NOT peer reviewed and that it does NOT reflect the opinion of Editors or, really, of any good physicists of note.
Monckton, who apparently can't tell the difference between being edited and submitting a scientific paper for peer review, is spitting mad. It's wonderful.
Regardless of the clear evidence that he had posted inaccurate information on his website (see next post), Junk Science purveyor Steven Milloy, has jumped straight over the “apology and correction” step, moving directly from inaccuracy to insult.
Indeed, rather than admitting that he had misinterpreted or misrepresented material printed by the American Physical Society, the self-described “Junkman” accused APS President Arthur Bienenstock of cowardice in the face of political controversy, and suggested that the APS is on the verge of a Nazi purge of those who disagree with the majority view (“Nacht der langen Messer,” in M'Lie's words).
Using methodology that Junkman Steve Milloy has refined over more than a decade, the pro-pollution website Junk Science today announced that the American Physical Society (APS) “has declared that there is no scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.”
But a quick click on the APS website produces this:
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.”
Isn't there a technical, legal and socially bruising word to describe when someone says something that is directly at variance with an observed, easily verifiable truth?