resignation letter part 2

Continued from part one...

'How different it is now. The
giants no longer walk the earth,
and the money flood has become
the raison d ’être of much physics
research, the vital sustenance of
much more, and it provides the
support for untold numbers of
professional jobs. For reasons
that will soon become clear my
former pride at being an APS
Fellow all these years has been
turned into shame, and I am
forced, with no pleasure at all, to
offer you my resignation from
the Society.
It is of course, the global
warming scam, with the (literally)
trillions of dollars driving it, that
has corrupted so many scientists,
and has carried APS before it like
a rogue wave. It is the greatest
and most successful
pseudoscientific fraud I have
seen in my long life as a physicist.
Anyone who has the faintest
doubt that this is so should force
himself to read the ClimateGate
documents, which lay it bare.
(Montford ’s book organizes the
facts very well.) I don’t believe
that any real physicist, nay
scientist, can read that stuff
without revulsion. I would almost
make that revulsion a definition
of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an
organization, done in the face of
this challenge? It has accepted
the corruption as the norm, and
gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us
sent an e-mail on the subject to a
fraction of the membership. APS
ignored the issues, but the then
President immediately launched a
hostile investigation of where we
got the e-mail addresses. In its
better days, APS used to
encourage discussion of
important issues, and indeed the
Constitution cites that as its
principal purpose. No more.
Everything that has been done in
the last year has been designed
to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious
APS statement on Climate Change
was apparently written in a hurry
by a few people over lunch, and
is certainly not representative of
the talents of APS members as I
have long known them. So a few
of us petitioned the Council to
reconsider it. One of the
outstanding marks of
(in)distinction in the Statement
was the poison word
incontrovertible, which describes
few items in physics, certainly
not this one. In response APS
appointed a secret committee
that never met, never troubled to
speak to any skeptics, yet
endorsed the Statement in its
entirety. (They did admit that the
tone was a bit strong, but
amazingly kept the poison word
incontrovertible to describe the
evidence, a position supported
by no one.) In the end, the
Council kept the original
statement, word for word, but
approved a far longer
“ explanatory” screed, admitting
that there were uncertainties,
but brushing them aside to give
blanket approval to the original.
The original Statement, which still
stands as the APS position, also
contains what I consider
pompous and asinine advice to
all world governments, as if the
APS were master of the universe.
It is not, and I am embarrassed
that our leaders seem to think it
is. This is not fun and games,
these are serious matters
involving vast fractions of our
national substance, and the
reputation of the Society as a
scientific society is at stake.'