Text Size
Facebook Twitter More...


emails from Hal Lewis and Cherry Murray not included
On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jim Felten wrote:
    To Jackie from Jimmy. No, Jackie, MY OWN TWO MESSAGES are not confidential, and Yes, you may send them to ... or anybody. However, he and you should be aware that I'm not an expert on this (just a rank-and-file physicist), and that my message is only one out of over 200 that the officers and councilors of APS received about this matter.
    Also, BE WARNED that there are copyright issues with the message from Cherry Murray (then-president of APS), which I ATTACHED to my second message. I felt free to send that copy to YOU, because, as a member of the APS, you were presumably on the original distribution list for it, about a year ago. If you send my 2nd message to APS nonmembers, I urge you to delete the attached message from Cherry Murray.
    Presumably you took no notice of this at the time. But in fact this message from Cherry Murray is the most annoying thing in this whole episode. She proposes to "investigate" Hal Lewis and the other dissenters. Although she sent this out to 30 or 40 thousand members, she might take the position that she retains copyright, and that it shouldn't be sent to nonmembers. You could deal with this by just paraphrasing what she says, or quoting briefly some annoying things that she says. You could also ask her for permission to send her message to nonmembers and see what she says.....
    I'm not well acquainted with more recent developments on this. I believe Council reaffirmed their 2007 resolution (which I do find objectionable). If they made any changes in the wording, I don't know of them.
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Jim Felten wrote:
    Jackie, since you seem interested in the resignation of Hal Lewis from the APS, I thought I should remind you that I did speak up about this. I'm sending you a copy of this e-mail and one other e-mail. I believe I already sent you these at the time. This one has Hal Lewis' original message attached at the bottom.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:    APS Council resolution on global warming
Date:    Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:37:58 -0600
From:    Felten, James E. (GSFC-665.0)[UNIV MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK]. To:     [Address list deleted by Jimmy]
    To President, President-elect, and Councillors of the American
Physical Society from Jim Felten; cc Hal Lewis. The message below is my
own opinion and does not purport to represent the position of NASA.
    I'm not a global-warming denier, although a few of my friends are.
But I'm not comfortable with the text of Council's 2007 resolution
(below). The word "disruptions" is a problem. Will there be "disruptions
in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems"? What would that mean?
"Changes" would be more accurate. Will they be major changes? If the
Northwest Passage becomes ice-free, arguably that's a major  physical
change, but certainly not a "disruption". In ecology, the changes may
not even be major on an objective scale-- for example, nothing like the
event that wiped out the dinosaurs. Polar bears may become extinct, but
Alaskan brown bears may thrive. The inaccurate propaganda word
"disruptions" has been slipped into the text to get attention. Will
there be "disruptions [of] social systems, security and human health"?
That's much harder to argue pro or con, and physicists have no special
expertise in this. Some areas, e.g., Alaska, Canada, Siberia and
Patagonia, may benefit from global warming.
    If "We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now", who
is "We"? Council should make it clear that unilateral actions are
useless. CO2 knows no boundaries. International negotiation is needed.
Some of the steps the USA is taking already will harm the USA
economically (e.g., by exporting jobs) and will not stop global warming.
Politicians are right in opposing some of these measures. The USA was
right not to sign the Kyoto Protocols. China and India were exempted
from the Kyoto strictures, and of the nations that did sign, not a
single one met its assigned target.
    A friend of mine, Jim Baker, was head of NOAA in the Clinton
administration and now works on global warming for the Bill Clinton
Foundation. He told me that even if all the measures being proposed now
are adopted, it will not be enough to cancel out the additional CO2 from
the ongoing industrialization of China and India. He says we are headed
for a world of 1000 ppm of CO2, and we should spend more time planning
for this.
    The latter part of Council's 2007 resolution is more careful and is
not objectionable. In fact, as I read it, it does give at least a nod
("complexity of the climate") toward the position of your critics, who
sometimes seem to contend that anthropogenic CO2 is NOT contributing to
global warming. It might be good for Council to add something explicit
about this, mentioning that other (non-anthropogenic) effects might also
be operating on decade time scales. But I think it wouldn't be
appropriate for Council to be completely agnostic about the role of
anthropogenic CO2.

On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Jim Felten wrote:

    Jackie: At the bottom is the very annoying message from the APS president proposing to "investigate" these global-warming skeptics.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:    Dr. Murray: Caution re "unsolicited e-mail"
Date:    Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:37:47 -0600
From:    Felten, James E. (GSFC-665.0)[UNIV MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK]. To:     [Addresses deleted by Jimmy.]

    To Dr. Cherry Murray from Jim Felten. I urge caution regarding "investigations" of "unsolicited e-mail". A member of the news media might report your message today as an attempt at censorship or even punishment of people who aren't toeing the party line. After all, your message today is also unsolicited, as is mine. These messages from Hal Lewis et al. are reputable physicists writing to other physicists about a very serious matter. And it was perfectly clear that they were not writing an "official APS message" with "APS knowledge or approval". I give them credit for their time and trouble. They didn't write spam messages. And their first message had some effect. It was wise of you to ask for a report from POPA.

    When I want to write to another physicist, I may look him up in the Directory. That's one of its main uses! Maybe these "guidelines" need some study. Do we "investigate" ALL physicists who use the Directory to send e-mail to many addressees? By the way, I too have been curious about the nature of Hal Lewis et al's mailing list. They used the phrases "sample" and "random fraction". I'm trying to check whether all Fellows received their two messages.

    I'm not a global-warming denier, but I'm not happy with the way this is going. For those of us old enough to remember, something similar happened in the Shockley era. 100 or so colleagues of Shockley who signed a petition defending Shockley's right to speak found that, as a result, they too began to be attacked.

    I sent you and Council an e-mail earlier saying that the 2007 resolution definitely needs some improvement. Councilor Chuck Dermer told me that Council received about 200 e-mails on the subject. Best wishes, Jim Felten.

Category: MyBlog

Categories ...

't Hooft 100 Year Star Ship Abner Shimony accelerometers action-reaction principle Aephraim Sternberg Alan Turing Albert Einstein Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer American Institute of Physics Andrija Puharich Anthony Valentin Anton Zeilinger Antony Valentini anyon Apple Computer Artificial Intelligence Asher Peres Back From The Future Basil Hiley Bell's theorem Ben Affleck Ben Libet Bernard Carr Bill Clinton black body radiation Black Hole black hole firewall black hole information paradox black holes Bohm brain waves Brian Josephson Broadwell Cambridge University Carnot Heat Engine Central Intelligence Agency CIA Clive Prince closed time like curves coherent quantum state Consciousness conservation laws Cosmic Landscape Cosmological Constant cosmology CTC cyber-bullying Dancing Wu Li Masters Dark Energy Dark Matter DARPA Daryl Bem David Bohm David Deutsch David Gross David Kaiser David Neyland David Tong de Sitter horizon Dean Radin Deepak Chopra delayed choice Demetrios A. Kalamidas Demetrios Kalamidas Dennis Sciama Destiny Matrix Dick Bierman Doppler radars E8 group Einstein's curved spacetime gravity Einstein's happiest thought electromagnetism Eli Cartan EMP Nuclear Attack entanglement signals ER=EPR Eric Davis Ernst Mach ET Eternal Chaotic Inflation evaporating black holes Facebook Faster-Than-Light Signals? fictitious force firewall paradox flying saucers FQXi Frank Tipler Frank Wilczek Fred Alan Wolf Free Will G.'t Hooft Garrett Moddel Gary Zukav gauge theory general relativity Geometrodynamics Gerard 't Hooft Giancarlo Ghirardi God Goldstone theorem gravimagnetism gravity Gravity - the movie gravity gradiometers gravity tetrads Gravity Waves Gregory Corso gyroscopes hacking quantum cryptographs Hagen Kleinert Hal Puthoff Hawking radiation Heisenberg Henry Stapp Herbert Gold Higgs boson Higgs field hologram universe Horizon How the Hippies Saved Physics I.J. Good ICBMs Igor Novikov inertial forces inertial navigation Inquisition Internet Iphone Iran Isaac Newton Israel Jack Sarfatti Jacques Vallee James F. Woodward James Woodward JASON Dept of Defense Jeffrey Bub Jesse Ventura Jim Woodward John Archibald Wheeler John Baez John Cramer John S. Bell Ken Peacock Kip Thorne Kornel Lanczos La Boheme Laputa Large Hadron Collider Lenny Susskind Leonard Susskind Levi-Civita connection LHC CERN libel Louis de Broglie Lubos Motl LUX Lynn Picknett M-Theory Mach's Principle Mae Jemison Making Starships and Star Gates Martin Rees Mathematical Mind MATRIX Matter-AntiMatter Asymmetry Max Tegmark Menas Kafatos Michael Persinger Michael Towler microtubules Milky way MIT MOSSAD multiverse NASA Nick Bostrum Nick Herbert Nobel Prize nonlocality Obama organized-stalking Origin of Inertia P. A. M. Dirac P.K.Dick P.W. Anderson Paranormal parapsychology Paul Werbos Perimeter Institute Petraeus Physical Review Letters Physics Today Post-Quantum Physics pre-Big Bang precognition presponse PSI WARS Psychic Repression qualia Quantum Chromodynamics quantum computers quantum entanglement quantum field theory quantum gravity Quantum Information Theory Quantum Theory RAF Spitfires Ray Chiao Red Chinese Remote Viewing retrocausality Reviews of Modern Physics Richard Feynman Richard P. Feynman Rindler effect Robert Anton Wilson Robert Bigelow Roger Penrose rotating black holes Roy Glauber Rupert Sheldrake Russell Targ Ruth Elinor Kastner S-Matrix Sagnac effect Sam Ting Sanford Underground Research Facility Sarfatti Lectures in Physics Scientific American Second Law of Thermodynamics Seth Lloyd signal nonlocality Skinwalker Ranch social networks space drive space-time crystal SPECTRA - UFO COMPUTER spontaneous broken symmetry SRI Remote Viewing Experiments Stanford Physics Stanford Research Institute Star Gate Star Ship Star Trek Q Stargate Starship Stephen Hawking Steven Weinberg stretched membrane string theory strong force gluons Stuart Hameroff superconducting meta-material supersymmetry symmetries telepathy Templeton The Guardian Thought Police time crystal time travel topological computers Topological Computing torsion UFO Unitarity unitary S-Matrix false? Unruh effect Uri Geller VALIS virtual particle Virtual Reality Warp Drive weak force Wheeler-Feynman WIMP WMAP WMD world crystal lattice wormhole Yakir Aharonov Yuri Milner