There is considerable unhoppiness about the APS. The arrogance of physicists was the obvious driver in setting the stage for the now appearing Steve Koonin cluster fuck. As Eli pointed out the members of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) drafting sub-committee were several courses short of a clue on climate science, even the physics parts of it. Ankh commented on how life imitates xkcd.
One would think that since the review of the APS statement on climate change was scheduled for this year, that the APS would appoint at least one or two physicists who specialized in climate science and could leaven the nuclear complex refugees who were on it. But no. That would not be physicist like.
When Eli suggested that what has been drafted was almost certainly a dog's dinner, Ethon's friend who had seen it replied that "while not at liberty to say anything about the statement as drafted, but let's just say I had to change my socks because Rover is drooling so much in anticipation of supper."
Ethon has read some letters to the APS and the Wall Street Journal and various blog comments. It turns out that Koonin lobbied to be in charge of the process, got input from climate scientists and then refused to acknowledge what he had been given, simply walking away. Eli has it now from three sources (although they may overlap) that he has resigned from POPA. Given that he was/is still listed the chair elect, take this as it is, but the WSJ article is a sure sign that the statement he ramrodded through has met considerable opposition. The APS response will be indicative.
Ben Santer, who was one of those talking with the sub-committee is unhappy about the outcome, the waste of time and the possibility that he was simply set up by someone with an agenda and no intent to learn. By permission Eli quotes him
Another source of real frustration is that Dr. Koonin had a real opportunity to listen. To consult experts in many different aspects of climate science. To do a deep dive into the science. To seek understanding of complex scientific issues. He did not make use of this opportunity. His op-Ed is not a deep dive - it is a superficial toe-dip into a shallow puddle, rehashing the same tired memes (the "warming hiatus" points toward fundamental model errors, climate scientists suppress uncertainties, there's a lack of transparency in the IPCC process, climate always varies naturally, etc.)