Revolt Inside American Physical Society Against Climate Fraud
December 18, 2009 • 10:22AM

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.