Replies

"A former president of the APS, Cherry Murray along with some members have tried to do this. It led to a rebellion of a very distinguished cadre of members of the APS who pointed out, quite publicly, the fraud that was being committed. Murray's response was to try to investigate who had leaked the email list. Her year's term ended with her being regarded as something of a disgrace."

Not the way I remember it. As I read it, the APS's position was that global warming is real and a threat, and that a group of members tried to get that position changed to at least "neutrality" on the question, and failed. This was back at the height of "Climategate", and was coming out shortly after the release of the email cache. I'll do some checking back and see if I can find what I saw. I "think" it was on the "Climate Audit" blog.

As I read it, the APS's position was that...

And that is the whole point and what the entire bruhaha was over. A politically corrupt "leadership" tried to take the APS in a political direction. Most of the membership are capable scientists who do not think the role of the APS is to take political positions, except for the promotion of science, and that GCC was certainly not an area where any position was appropriate other than that the best science should be applied to the study of this issue just like any other issue... And that was the second part of the bruhaha that the membership believed that the science that was being reported was of very poor quality.

As for the Lord Monkton issue, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I would point out, however, that the issue regards the behavior of "The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society."

This is a subchapter of the APS whose members are self-selected, and obviously it is attractive to the more politically inclined. It is a sad affair and reflects discredit on everyone. "Physics and Society" is, however, a newsletter and not a technical journal. That gives me small comfort because this rot will obviously spread and those involved are sacrificing their professional reputations in engaging in this nonsense.

And I would note the comment: “Those statements were typically not submitted to the rank and file for scientific peer review, nor were they typically voted on by the rank and file.” This is the whole point. The rank and file membership do have standards and have little tolerance for bad science whether it be for cold fusion or for GCC.