UPDATE5: (Saturday 10/16/10) It has been a week, and I think this piece has been well distributed, so I’m putting it in regular queue now and it will gradually scroll off the page.
UPDATE4: (Friday 10/15/10) APS member Roger Cohen comments here on Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth op/ed.
UPDATE3: (Friday 10/15/10) Andrew Revkin, after a week (I sent him this story last Friday) of digging around to get just the right rebuttal, responds here at Dot Earth.
UPDATE2: (Wednesday 10/13/10) This just in…click for the story.
APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation
UPDATE: (Saturday 10/9/10) Since this came in late Friday, many of our weekday WUWT readers might not see this important story, so I’m sticking it to the top for a couple of days. New stories will appear just below this one, please scroll down to see them. – Anthony
(Originally posted on 10/8/10 ) We’ve previously covered the APS here, when I wrote:
While Copenhagen and its excesses rage, a quiet revolution is starting.
Indeed, not so quiet now. It looks like it is getting ugly inside with the public airing of the resignation of a very prominent member who writes:
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.
…
In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.- Hal Lewis
Below is his resignation letter made public today, via the GWPF.
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post.
Readers, we can do this. Here’s the place at WaPo to ask for it. For anyone writing to the WaPo, the national@washpost.com, is the national news editorial desk. The Post’s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, is the readers’ representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.
Spread the word on other blogs. Let’s see if they have enough integrity to provide a counterpoint. – Anthony
======================================
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
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.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
==========================================================
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
What a very sincere and honest letter. I hope that many others who have been apalled by the corruption of science by the climate lobby will follow his lead and make their views known.
Wow.
Wow!
That man deserves respect.
wow – and public too.
Nothing has changed much – you only need to look at the way Newton stacked up a Royal Society committee to refute Leibniz’s claims and support his own. Newton also wrote Hooke out of the history books.
Nothing changes.
Hello Hal Lewis.
Pleased to meet you this way.
Shun mashed potatoes.
========
Thank you.
There is a point beyond which resuscitation or rehabilitation of institutions, journals, individuals … is realistic or useful. Time to consider pulling the plug on several of them and creating new ones. Maybe the APS is one of them.
A man of integrity … unlike a number in climate science.
I wish this would be a wake-up call to the rest of the APS, but suspect the APS leadership will encourage this letter to sink without creating noticeable ripples. Dr. Harold Lewis confirms my own assessment of the scale of this scandal as ‘the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud’ in his or my lifetime, and indeed, without precedent in the history of science, as in the closest analogy, the eugenics movement, there was no political or PC suppression of dissenting opinions.
If our civilization survives, this will eventually represent a black eye for the APS for its refusal to acknowledge either implications of the Climategate scandal or its own mistake in taking a political rather than a scientific stand. This ‘blunder’ (to use a much kinder word than deserved) is one that deserves the same degree of excoriation as the Catholic Church deservedly receives for its treatment of Galileo. In both cases, the truth was evident, but was suppressed for political reasons. Indeed, there are actually more extenuating factors for the Church (given the general Reformation climate of intolerance, and the scanty track-record of science prior to the Scientific Revolution) than there are for the APS. Dr. Harold Lewis is courageous to take such a stand as he has.
WOW!
If a majority of APS members feel the same, they can through several election cycles, remove those who oppose the APS constitution, either by vote, not reappointing to committees, or actual removal. Even a vocal 30% can move the middle- of-the-road 30% to action. It is how democratic organizations work, but it does take you away from a career, research and teaching. It does require time and effort, and a motivated constituency. If APS is a self-sustaining leadership, then the current tyranny will continue, until a disaster overtakes it’s board or it is made irrelevant by a replacement organization. The first step was taken when APS members who disagree with their leadership realized that they were not alone!
What a great man, maybe it is time to found (is that the correct term) a new society with a constitution based on that of the USA with open membership lists and places for actual scientists and laymen who are interested in science, above all it should be open and honest, sort of like a fermal WUWT!
This raises the age old dilemna as to whether one is better to fight battles from within or to stand proud but on the sidelines.
If all sceptics at APS were to resign there would be no prospect of forcing the APS to consider the climate science issues and at some stage issue a pronouncement of the Ssociety’s position on them. Having said that I applaud Hal’s integrity and I am not surprised to see a true and genuine scientist hold such views. Of course, it would be good if he could get his story/letter published in the MSM (but of course there is no real hope of that).
If AGW is eventually discredited (and in the end the pro warmist lobby will be unable to control what is truly hapening to the climate – say temps cool over the next 20 years) there is going to be a lot of discredited scientific bodies/ institutions and it will take a long time for science to regrain mainstream credibility once more.
Seeing the wheels that are beginning to come off the wagon, I am surprised that leading institutions are not beginninng to revise their positions at least to the extent of pointing out that uncertainties exist to some extent and that there are still some unkown mechanisms, variables which could have an impact. To start making a slight retreat now would assist their exit stratergy should sometime in the medium future the AGW be shown beyond doubt to be a scam/false theory.
Perhaps he and Michael Mann should have a public debate?
Would a real scientist stand up and speak . . . oh one just did.
“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Incontrovertible!
Respect!
Reading this made me very sad – not so much sad for this fine, honest scientist and gentleman who leaves the Society with his integrity firmly intact (although that is of course a very sad fact). I am more sad to have yet another reaffirmation of the politically- and money-driven state of today’s “science.” And sad to be reminded that there are millions of brainwashed sheep out there who will happily label this man a “denier,” and a “lunatic on the fringe,” doubtless accompanied by accusations of being in the pay of Big Oil. There will be more still who simply close their eyes to this, deep in denial (yes, the word is more aptly applied to YOU), and carry on spreading alarm, business-as-usual.
Shame on the APS. Shame on the Believers everywhere.
Hal: those who respect freedom and honesty salute you.
Courage and honesty… I love it.
What a powerful letter. I hope it spreads far and wide.
I don’t know if anybody has noticed but Wegman is being investigated for misconduct.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1
My Web-Fu is weak and I don’t seem to be able to get the link posted properly.
I am unfamiliar with Dr. Lewis, and with his efforts to petition the APS. This scenario indicates, again, how all of science has been adversely impacted by the sloppy work of climate activists (I can no longer call them scientists). I applaud his honesty and hope this is not his last word on this issue.
Just think, the 1010 project and their ignorant lemmings would explode this renowned physicist for his views.
Thanks and continued good health to Dr. Lewis!
EJ
It is a shame to have such an old scientist to close his career in this way.
I read in detail his letter of resignation and I can see that technology has passed him. He said he tried to run an e-mail campaign using the APS member e-mails only to be chastised that he was actually sending unsolicited e-mails.
With this he falls so low that is a shame for him. He presents a grand conspiracy involving trillions(!) of dollars and exotic islands.
Who fed him with all this misinformation?
Absolutely stunned.
Seems a shame that a once austere society is losing someone with such obvious integrity, but I can’t find fault with any of what he says and there comes a point where it becomes apparent that you can’t actually change things from the inside.
Enormous respect is due to Hal, well done sir and my sympathies for the position the unethical approach of others has put you in.
In my long career in academic life I have never read as brave and honest a letter of principle as this by Hal Lewis. Irrespective of the merits of the case, climate science has become prostituted to the most insidious form of corruption – money. On this most crucial of issues we needed the very best of science not the worst – Hal Lewis’s integrity should be a beacon to us all on whichever side of the argument we stand.
This is a powerful statement to all who like to paint climate change sceptics as conspiracy theorists and crackpots. I have saved a copy of this letter to use next time someone tries to label me in such a way. It shows we are in good company.
Desmong,
If I’m reading your comment correctly, are you trying to suggest that carbon trading does not represent a multi-trillion dollar industry?
Not to mention the best cocktail parties.
And what sickens me more is that the APS will lay low, say nothing, and simply hope that all this blows over.
There is something that is very important that goes beyond science. A parent might understand. If we are spending trillions of dollars, then we are spending now the tax money of people who have not yet even been born. We are borrowing money that people yet to be born will be asked to pay back. We have an obligation to them to ensure that we are spending their future earnings wisely and for good purpose. I do not have that confidence. I believe we are doing a grave disservice to future generations and that the notion that we are doing this to SAVE future generations, quite Orwellian. But that is how our politics work these days. If you want to rob future generations of their earnings, you claim to be saving them.
This should not only turn the stomach of the scientists, but it should be found revolting to anyone who has or hope to have children. This is a fraud and a theft on a scale I have not heard of in history.
The APS is not unique. It seems that all major scientific professional societies have trooped uncritically into the warmist lobby. I have decided to resign my membership of the American Chemical Society this year because of dogmatic warmist editorials in its weekly magazaine, C&EN. The editor Rudy Baum is perfectly able to see through the bisphenol A and other chemical scares, but at the same time trots out all the usual warmist scare stuff and has used the temperature reconstructions of Michael Mann uncritically to back up this case.
I do not have the time or interest to tackle the issue from within. I will miss the useful updates to the world of chemical industry in C&EN but hope the ACS will miss my subscription a little more.
Thank you.
An example to us all.
Richard Verney says; If AGW is eventually discredited (and in the end the pro warmist lobby will be unable to control what is truly hapening to the climate – say temps cool over the next 20 years.
Richard don’t you know that the cooling will be the result of everyone turning off their appliance standby lights and throwing out their incandescent light globes and burning food products, rather than oil, in their cars?
What an impressive and principled stand, as an Englishman i am totally ashamed of the pivotal role being played by UK institutions in the corruptions of free scientific thinking so eloquently expounded in yor resignation letter.
Any warmist like to tell us that Hal Lewis is not a real scientist, just because he disagrees with them? Oh come on that’s the usual tactic, that and character smears.
Maybe they are too busy counting their payoffs from the green lobbies (or as other folk would call it, taxes).
richard verney October 8, 2010 at 3:44 pm:
My reading of the letter is that he tried all available means to tackle this from within.
As far as revised positions go, the Royal Society recently produced a precautionary reweaseling of their words:
http://royalsociety.org/News_WF.aspx?pageid=4294972969&terms=climate+science&fragment=&SearchType=&terms=climate%20science
Q: What are the differences between politicians and scientists?
.
A: None … they both lie to make themselves look good and seem important and suck the blood out of taxpayer wallets.
++++++++++++++++
Once upon a time I considered scientists to be one of the last bastions of truth, honor, and integrity. Sadly, this no longer seems to be the case.
Hal Lewis must have been wrestling with his consience for some considerable time before concluding that this was his only option. I have to say that he has confirmed my personal thoughts about the E-mails being incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing.
Science has not had a good day for some considerable time, but this is a good day for science. I propose that henceforth, good science days shall be called “Hal Lewis Days”
May we have many many more Hal Lewis days in the not too distant future, in the interests of science and scientists.
One small step for science, one huge step for a true scientist.
A man of most refreshing probity, what happened to the APS?
The same as in the RS, I guess.
What a great man.
I only have one word to say, ‘wow, unbelievable.’
(sorry, I went to the Joe Biden school of word counting).
Hal Lewis writes:
“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.”
I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Lewis. To me, the most frustrating aspect of the Grand Climate Gate Fraud is that the proponents have offered nothing that passes muster as serious science. Some computer models and the characteristics of the CO2 molecule are all they offered. Even if perfect, the study behind Mann’s Hockey Stick was profoundly trivial. I am so very pleased to learn that Professor Lewis managed to gather 200 members of the APS who wanted to discuss these matters. I am not surprised that bureaucrats shut them down. And I agree with Professor that money seems to be the only explanation. So let us formulate Lewis’ rule: floods of money to scientists corrupt science and do great harm to science.
Desmong:
There we go, suggesting this brave scientist is old and feeble-minded unable to master the technology and is therefore on the fringe; an “old scientist.”
It’s what we’ve come to expect when a scientist with integrity speaks up against the orthodoxy.
Desmong (October 8, 2010 at 4:01 pm),
You make a very, very weak “cut and paste” attempt at ad hom.
What is the point?
Professor Hal Lewis, I think your integrity and scientific professionalism is on a par with Galileo. As a scientist I can think of no higher compliment.
He expressed it well when he made clear that science is about debate … but the debate is over.
Well, here is my email to the Washpost:
Dear Editor
May I request that as counterpoint to Michael Mann’s recent article, equal space is allowed to publicise the open resignation letter from scientist Hal Lewis to the scientific body the APS? Lewis can probably now count himself amongst the “climate change deniers” referred to by Mann in his piece.
Please see his letter of resignation here, and consider it for publication in your paper or on your site, in the interest of fair, open and balanced reporting to your readership, upon which I am sure you must pride yourself.
Thank you for your kind attention.
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
Faithfully
David Cochrane
Layman and lover of science
I know – you can probably do better than that – but it’s my effort for what it is worth.
The American Meteorological Society is another example of a scientific society that has gone down the same trail as the APS.
WOW!
Lewis sure got his pride and honour intact. Ive worked with “company values” for decades now and when your most loyal members acts like this there it`s a very reliable signal that the organisation has lost its purpose and identity.
Brave! Mr Lewis Brave! Thank you for sharing your frustration and hopelesness!
Hal Lewis was one of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s last students. He studied at Berkeley and the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. He worked at Bell Labs. He chaired the JASON Defense Advisory Panel which was an exotic semi-hush-hush group which consulted with US government, before becoming a professor at UC Santa Barbara.
All of which is to say that Hal Lewis was a serious scientist with high credentials.
His resignation from APS should not be ignored.
As you can all tell, changing this from the inside is impossible..its the old story that smart investors tell you: never invest extra money into the company you work for, it puts all your eggs in the same basket..all of these scientists involved have put their life’s integrity, work and money into this charade and they can not allow it to go down without facing a reality that involves scrubbing toilets.
On the other hand, do not think I am claiming a conspiracy at all. I believe that these people are simply motivated by the simplest of motivations…money and power. Without this scare, their money and power evaporates in the blink of an eye. Just watch as this does come crashing down … the larger something gets, the bigger it falls. The only crimes (other then incompetence) that will come out of this will be after the fact, so just watch the show. Climategate is still working its rounds, and further coups are going to pop up as the smarter investors bail out quickly at some point leaving the scientists the ones that will become broke and poor.
Desmong!
Your the obviously the opposit character of Mr Lewis.But thanks for exposing the lack of honour within the AGW camp once again.I really mean it thank you!
desmong says:
October 8, 2010 at 4:01 pm
“With this he falls so low that is a shame for him. He presents a grand conspiracy involving trillions(!) of dollars and exotic islands.
Who fed him with all this misinformation?”
====================
Where is Eisenhower when you need him, he saw this coming.
Wisdom:
The quality of being wise; knowledge, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and the best means; discernment and judgment; discretion; sagacity; skill; dexterity. [1913 Webster]
When was the last time a politician, uttered any of these words?
Excellent letter Mr. Lewis. Taking a stand takes guts and has the power of commitment to action in it.
Inspired by the above I posted the following to the Washington Post comments. It includes a Pro Alarmist Challenge to Michael Mann.
pwvl wrote:
Investigating the Climate of Doom
1) Actual Science Data Correlations:
0.44 CO2 levels v.s. Temperature.
0.85 Pacific PDO + Atlantic AMO Ocean v.s. Temperature.
0.88 Linear+Cyclic Null Hypothesis v.s. Temperature.
0.96 Pacific PDO + Atlantic AMO Ocean + Solar Activity v.s. Temperature.
2) While CO2 has increased in the last 50 years the 130 yr temp linear+cyclic tiny upward tend remains unchanged based upon observational data.
2b) Put another way, for seventy or so years the temperature was rising slightly with a linear and cyclic trend, then as we pumped CO2 into the atmosphere in increasing amounts since after WWII that same slight linear and cyclic trend continued unchanged.
2c) As a result of this, Nature falsifies the alarmists claims, including their IPCC climate model predictions.
2d) Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections, by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections
2e) A primer for disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data, by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/a-primer-for-disproving-ipcc%E2%80%99s-theory-of-man-made-global-warming-using-observed-temperature-data
3) If CO2 increased temperature as the alarmists claim with their doomsday predictions it would have shown up in the temperature data diverting the tiny linear+cyclic upward trend that started 130 years ago after the little ice age ended. It hasn’t diverted the temperature.
4) This is likely because CO2’s specific heat contribution is logarithmic and already has contributed it’s bulk of heat retention (the first ~20ppm of CO2 is half of it’s specific heat / green house effect capacity).
4b) The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide, by David Archibald, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
4c) Of particular interest: “Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.” http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
5) Natural causes of PDO+AMO+Solar clearly shown to a very high probability.
6) Based upon observed temperature and CO2 data Nature falsifies alarmist AGW hypothesis.
7) Thus alarmism over 0.44 not rational.
8) CO2 is an essential plant nutrient.
9) From 1980 to 1999 satellites measured a 6% increase in green plant life on the planet during a period of increasing CO2.
10) This is consistent with knowledge from biology and commercial greenhouse operations where CO2 levels of 900ppm to 1,200ppm are commonly used to grow plants faster and bigger.
11) Current atmospheric CO2 is at ~390ppm today. This indicates the potential expanded growth of many plants in the environment with more CO2 present.
12) More plants = more food for humans and for anyone who is pro human that is a good thing for we have an expanding population to feed.
13) CO2 will provide one of the key nutrients for the next green farming revolution.
14) Evidence of CO2 is life: http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE?hd=1.
N) …
The above is a good summary of some of the factual reasons to conclude that there is no problem with CO2 other than hysteria due to the soothsaying of alarmist doomsday scenarios by irresponsible agenda driven worrywarts such as Michael Mann.
If there is any evidence to actually support the alleged correlation of CO2 to temperature rise as the alarmists allege please provide it. Thanks. I’ve asked many hundreds of supporters of the alarmist AGW hypotheses for their evidence and so far no hard evidence at all and certainly nothing that does any better than their 0.44 correlation of CO2 to temperature.
I challenge Michael Mann to take The Pro AGW Hypothesis Challenge (which he has so far not met the full requirements of): Present a clearly written statement of your alleged alarmist AGW hypotheses along with all the alleged scientific claims made and any hard evidence that supports those claims, provide all data to support your claims (all raw data and all mannipulated data including the reasons for the mannipulations), plus mention all means to verify preferably by experiment the claims, and all means by which they would be refuted. Show your work or the work of others in full detail.
10/8/2010 7:58:49 PM
(Note if I’ve made any mistakes or if you have any links for me that would provide good references please let me know. Thanks, pwl).
Wow .
The truth in plain english.
Thank you Hal Lewis. Extremely kind of you to make it public.
“The Giants no longer walk the earth”, but one is walking out the door.
Checkmate!
Karl: It is like someone driving down a four-lane road, listening to the radio that some driver is driving the wrong way. And this driver says, ‘- Oh, the fool. They are all driving the wrong way!’.
Hal’s resignation is badly written. It shows that he follows a biased view on things related to climate. The worst part is that he hints towards conspiracies. Well, it is more than hinting; he accuses even the president of the APS as part of the conspiracy. And this, because the president did not take him seriously.
This sounds like a sincere and well accomplished old gentleman expressing his concerns (though I disagree with his assessment).
But this statement is absolutely ridiculous: “I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.”
It is gratuitous hyperbole. Please stop the hype.
vigilantfish says:
October 8, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I wish this would be a wake-up call to the rest of the APS, but suspect the APS leadership will encourage this letter to sink without creating noticeable ripples.
Exactly.
How long before the warmist smear campaign begins… counting down… 3…2…1…
Most of the people who post here are in love with real, evidence based, data driven science. We are excitied by it. The corruption that has gained prominence disgusts us.
So what must happen. We must continue to push, those who have succumbed to corruption are unlikely to voluntarily step aside and relinquish their ill gotten gains. (Some will redeem themselves – but they will be few). The corrupt must be demonstrated for what they are and removed from their positions. Keep shining the light.
This is not new. I resigned from the APS over 10 years ago, after ~30 years of membership starting in my student days, mainly because I saw their influence turn a large project into incompetent hands for political reasons. Their newsletter Physics Today has taken a strong political slant and is no longer interesting. A similar political slant has crept into the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I shall shortly stop paying my dues to that organization and read from the numerous smaller journals that have come into being, likely for similar reasons that bother me.
Other once-grand communicators including Scientific American have been dumbed down into popular science and political correctness. American science is still a grand thing to work at but its voices have come under the influence of political hacks whose influence is detrimental to the world and their profession. The quest for money is behind this as many of your correspondents have noted.
Stupid and ill considered splatter movies go viral in an instant but I fear this letter, so studied and thoughtful, will just sink into oblivion.
I think that says something about the times we live in.
Why isn’t this all over the media? Why haven’t professional societies picked up his lead? Dr. Lewis deserves a great deal more time for this fabulous letter as opposed the regular celebrity circus.
desmog,
Apologies if my sarcometer missed your subtle sense of irony. I’ll remind you that
Tahiti and Bali are indeed tropical islands.
This pretty much confirms my intuition on the internal politics. Power and prestige seeking fools tend to rise to the top of organizations (i.e. the shit rises to the top) and they will do everything for the short-term gain.
Reading these two letters side-by-side shows, through contrast, how incredibly pathetic Mann is.
Posted on the NTTimes and about 10 California sites related to the Prop 23 issue.
Breaking News:
Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara Resigns from The American Physical Society on October 6th.
source: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
The reason:
“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.”
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Outstanding, excellent, and in all ways commendable. Bravo.
Rarely has the difference between intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals been made so clear.
Unlike desmog, Hal Lewis clearly does not like the taste of Kool-Aid.
Sir, you have my respect, as a physics graduate. The instruments today certainly cost a bit, but politics is not supposed to be what drives the field. Let alone suppressing discussion. That practice could hardly be more wrong.
A tribute to Professor Hal Lewis. Thank you for your courage. Many of us see similar corruption in our own fields and I think we all should follow the money. Much of it is not coming from the debt of tax payers, but from outside the country — like in the last fraudulent U.S. election. As a non-scientist who has followed many of the sciences with awe, enthusiasm, and gratitude for truth-seeking much of my life, I hope all the decliners and resigners will form new organizations and develop new peer-reviewed, non-pay-wall, publications. I think there is a large audience out there. I am ready to join and subscribe. As I have mentioned before, I “suscribe” (make a quarterly “donation”) to WUWT and other blogs that I believe are magnificently filling the huge gap. The problem for these soldiers (warriors, it seems) for the cause of science is that the “pay-offs” or the funding will not be large,…but it will be honorable. Will it be enough?
(One of my great sadnesses is how many geologists whose work I admire tow the AGW line. They, of all scientists, should be ashamed. They all know better if they are scientists of the Earth and its natural cycles.)
Desmong, it will take more than your small effort to discredit Hal, he has done more in his years than most would ever dream of.
I do not think he is quite the bumbling fool you would have us believe. Many a good tune played on an old fiddle etc.
I would like to see this resignation letter making headlines in the news, I’m going to do my bit by posting the link to this post and the letter wherever I can.
The interesting question to ask is who else/how many among the APS members/fellows will follow Dr. Lewis’ lead?
If the APS has not followed the normal procedures regarding petitions then that needs to be rectified. As for the rest; I’m not sure I understand why all the high-fiving is merited. So this Harold Lewis, an APS member, thinks much of climate science is psuedo-science. Many other APS members do not.
Any particular reason I should weight this guys opinion more then the society’s council that adopted the aforementioned statement?
Here is an article that should interest many of the readers, especially the Canadian ones and those of you in the northern US. New study says Global Warming will be a benefit to us … http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/10/08/7204
Course there is the infamous Mr Weaver and Mark Serreze commenting on the soon to disappear Arctic ice.
Good for Mr Lewis, standing up for open debate. Here in Alberta, Canada, our professional engineering and geophysical association allows fully open debate. Why other societies would want to shut out debate defies my understanding.
Earle Williams says:
October 8, 2010 at 5:16 pm
“Tahiti and Bali are indeed tropical islands.”
Cancun may not be an island, but it is a vacation paradise . And nothing else.
Where next ? St. Maarten ?
“Any particular reason I should weight this guys opinion more then the society’s council that adopted the aforementioned statement?
”
Because he comes from the generation that practiced ( as mentioned in his letter) some pretty potentially deadly science and did not just fall back on computer models to verify their feelings about dangerous matters, but actually did the work,.
And the work they did had to be accurate , and the stuff had to work. Or else.
Starwatcher,
Institutional leaders, like babies nappies, should be periodically changed – and for the same reason.
I have not heard of Dr. Lewis before this blog, but he has my undying admiration. Thank you Dr. Lewis.
Starwatcher October 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm:
“Any particular reason I should weight this guys opinion more then the society’s council that adopted the aforementioned statement?”
If they rectify their processes you might find out.
Starwatcher says on October 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Perhaps you could name some, and then point out those with the stature of Hal Lewis or Freeman Dyson (who holds similar views to Lewis)?
This is a war for the hearts, minds and votes of the general public. Again, the scientific community are speaking to each other, and using language that media would not release and Joe sixpack would not take the time to read after the sports section.
Important information like this needs to be condensed into easily-digested media releases for general distribution. Like a 300 word release titled: “Top scientist resigns over Global Warming Scam’, or similar.
A truly Jeffersonian document! My heart leaps up and salutes Professor Lewis.
I hope those in the community of scientists still have it within themselves to be stirred out of complacency by this firm assertion of integrity in the face of cravenness.
Respect twice. First, for trying hard to work within the institution (that he helped to build), to preserve its integrity and that of its members, and second, for washing his hands of it when he found that the structure had been replaced by rot.
Many American membership organizations have been similarly captured by the disciples of power politics, who have pushed aside integrity, reason, and member participation. Most of the national three and four-letter organizations you have heard of are prime examples.
Congratulations to Prof Lewis. But is also time all scientists of integrity to resigne from the National Academy of Science unles they can persuade it to withdraw two recent papers in the “Proceedings”, Welch et al (8 August 2010) claiming rice yields are declining in SE Asia because of alleged warming (there is no decline and not much if any warming), and Nathan Pelletier et al, Forecasting potential global environmental
costs of livestock production 2000–2050, 4th October 2010. The latter claims livestock emissions of CO2 and CH4 come from nowhere and bear no relation to their ingestion of grass and cereals. When the NAS publishes “science” like that it is no longer fit for purpose and should be wound up.
Graeme says: October 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm
How long before the warmist smear campaign begins… counting down… 3…2…1…
Desmong is already on it (though in a disappointingly clichéd style)
Everyone needs to read the Michael Mann letter in the Washington Post. I don’t think that I’ve ever read anything so pathetic. It is a blatant cry for the voters in the upcoming U.S. elections to protect him and his fellow climate “scientists” from the evil Republicans who will investigate the CAGW fraud.
Any true scientist should have no fear because the data will protect him. Truth is always the best evidence no matter what the court.
‘Lest we forget:
President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address To The Nation (full)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1520506247286790466#
Wonderful counterpoint to Mann’s op-ed.
If you ‘d read his letter you’d see he represented 200+ signatories of protest – his opinion is not unique in the society.
The scientific societies (Am Soc Biochemistry & Molec Biol & Am Inst Nutrition) I belonged to before retirement provided their members with a book containing the mail address, email address, and phone numbers. I guess the APS doesn’t do that simple courtesy for it’s members. Suggests that they have something to hide.
The only way you’ll ever get the truth out of Mann is to pay him for it.
He, as with the rest of his cadre of insiders, sold their souls a long time ago.
DonB says:
October 8, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Everyone needs to read the Michael Mann letter in the Washington Post.
———
I wasn’t going to but you convinced me.
What a craven piece of non-apologism and excuse making.
If the Congress can investigate doggone Roger Clemens, then this Mann
is not beyond the reach of public recriminations for his deceit and recalcitrance.
It reads like a note from his mother.
“Mann’s op-ed.”
Op-ed ?
I thought it was a note from his mother .
Sometimes you gotta make a stand.
Good for Mr. Lewis.
I can only hope that there is a large number of members of the America Physical Society who now have the conviction to follow his lead. Only by force of numbers can this become significant.
Dr. Hal Lewis,
Words cannot fully describe how much your letter effected me. I don’t believe I have ever read such an eloquent and earnest letter. I hope that the burden of having wrote this great work does not harm you. In my mind you now stand with the likes of Nicolaus Copernicus, Galeleo Galilei, Martin Luther, and Thomas Jefferson. You are the first scientific giant of the 21st century.
It is science that is being co-opted, the scientific method abandoned and redefined. The words “fact” and “theory” formerly were used very carefully by scientists. “Incontrivertable” has never even been part of the lexicon. Decisions by you and other scientists with integrity may come at a heavy price. But science can still persist even though we may now be filled with shame in identifying ourselves as scientists.
I will leave you with the first sentence and two other excerpts from another great document:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
Thank you very much Dr. Lewis.
Daniel Kozub.
Chemist, Scientist, Skeptic.
desmong writes:
“Hal’s resignation is badly written. It shows that he follows a biased view on things related to climate. The worst part is that he hints towards conspiracies. Well, it is more than hinting; he accuses even the president of the APS as part of the conspiracy. And this, because the president did not take him seriously.”
desmong, your problem is easy to spot. You cannot see that the emperor is wearing no clothes. desmong, the pro-AGW crowd has not produced one single item that passes muster as genuine science. The core of AGW science is a bunch of computer nerds who know no science, have produced none, yet have managed to convince government agencies that they should be funded. How did they convince them? The same way Al Gore did, and he is truly a snake oil salesman. Your so-called scientists in the APS are no better than Gore and, in fact, worse because he has his stupidity as an excuse. If it is not conspiracy, at least a conspiracy of silence while the bucks flow, then how do these people overlook the fact that everything produced by pro-AGW people fails to pass muster as science? If it is not conspiracy, then why do not the pro-AGW scientists condemn Al Gore’s so-called work? Will you condemn it? If so, then why won’t the head of the APS condemn it? If you won’t condemn it, then I will not waste my time writing another comment to you.
Done and done. Although almost everyone who reads my tiny blog reads you anyway.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/harold-lewis-scathing-resignation-letter-from-the-aps/
REPLY: Reddy Kilowatt (my uncle) thanks you. – Anthony
Excellent letter! In a nutshell – “It’s all about the CLIMATE CA$H” – Crappy climate research at taxpayers expense…
Bob Ryan’s comment hits a point I hadn’t thought about before….
“On this most crucial of issues we needed the very best of science not the worst”
This is actually backwards!
We’ve grown accustomed to thinking of AGW as a crucial issue, but the plain fact, the most deeply scientific fact, is that climate is NOT a crucial issue. If science had remained honest since 1975, we wouldn’t even be discussing the whole matter.
If we had the best science instead of the worst, Climate would still be the same trivial and cheerful subject as it was before 1975: “Think the rain will hurt the rhubarbs?” It would still be serious for farmers and others who need to predict next season, but we haven’t advanced our predictive ability since then anyway. (The sunspot dependency, and the 33-year cycle of storminess, were well known in 1940. We’re just now re-discovering them because real science has been buried since 1975.)
The only reason we even have to talk about Climate is because Margaret Mead and her leftist proteges like John Holdren decided to create a scientific-looking Big Problem that could be used by governments to scare people into submission.
Starwatcher says:
October 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Surely, you jest. Show me one hypothesis that comes from climate science. There is not one. The scientific description of the CO2 molecule comes from 1860. Aside from that, they have no hypotheses at all. None. Nada. Zip.
As is now the choice of most professionals to openly kick agin the dogma of AGW.
Congratulations to Dr. Lewis for having the integrity, pride, and guts to stand on principle against the Goliaths of a formerly respected but now corrupted institution.
Starwatcher writes:
“Any particular reason I should weight this guys opinion more then the society’s council that adopted the aforementioned statement?”
Yes, because he can see that the emperor has no clothes. There is no AGW science.
Link to Michael Mann op-ed mentioned earlier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484_pf.html
Challenges to policy proposals for how to deal with this problem should be welcome — indeed, a good-faith debate is essential for wise public policymaking.
But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.
Debate is welcome, except towards Mann’s work and that of his colleagues. Those are anti-science.
I regret that Mr. Lewis resigned. The APS needs people on the inside shaking the organization up. He was clearly not alone. There are at least 199 other members who feel the same.
Trev says: October 8, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Oh it has changed Trev. Newton got angry with folk for plagiarism – and there is every likelihood Hooke was trying that one on, which is a shame because Hooke did make other contributions to Science. Newton simply wrote Hooke out of his own account, not “the history books” AFAICT. Newton worked damn hard and with the highest level of integrity w.r.t. evidence and good scientific method, damn it, he just about brought it into being. He was thoroughly respected and known by all. What has also changed is that while Newton’s motivating factor was his experience of God – and he can explain his whole scientific endeavour in those terms – few can do so today, or even appreciate Newton in this way.
But I can.
It is sad to see such a corruption of our scientific establishment and publications. Not only has the APS been corrupted, but so too have Scientific American, National Geographic, Nature, and many other science based periodicals. The enviro-political types have infiltrated all of these organizations and hijacked them for their own purposes, debasing these once great publications.
Suzanne says:
October 8, 2010 at 6:03 pm
‘Lest we forget:
President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address To The Nation (full)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1520506247286790466#
=============
WOW
Talk about Deja Vu, the address seems to be an outline of our current situation.
The link seems to lose audio after 10-11 minutes, but it exactly describes our current situation. He was warning us,… now others seem to be trying to take advantage.
Live and learn.
Or just vote.
Thanks for the link.
Gentlemen
Having sadly watched the great master craftsmen of the WWII generation retire or die out, I have been left to observe men with limited integrity take their places.
I am not a man of great intelligence; but, by that generation’s example I knew that honorable men with unyielding devotion to duty , persistence, patience, and honesty are great men and are destined to do great things. I have never meet Professor Lewis; but, by his words, I know him to be a great man.
A much humbled and heartened,
Kforestcat
Wow. Not much to add to the comments already posted. Only questions.
Who are the young, upcoming scientists with integrity? (who’s going to replace guys like Lewis? or at least pick up the mantle)
Is it still possible to do (real, honest) science with integrity (and without fear) in the USA today?
What happened to Scientific American? (was shocked at what it has become after buying an issue recently after missing many years). Calling it “popular science” gives the periodical “Popular Science” a bad name.
Bell Labs. Is real, honest, basic research a thing of the past in the USA? (I’m reminded of the FU’s at Lucent, Corning Optics, Loral, different kinds of FUs, some deliberate, but none good for USA).
Makes a father worry for his childrens’ futures.
Thank you for your integrity and honesty Dr. Lewis. These seem to be two qualities that are missing in much of what is called “science” today. After following this fraud for the last twenty years I no longer accept any scientific proclamations as truthful.
I think the Wall Street Journal or Investors Business Daily would publish Dr. Lewis’s resignation.
The smears against Dr. Lewis has already begun with Desmong and bgood2creation. I suggest everyone ignore these trolls.
Hal
I’ve never met you but thank you for speaking out and joining the ranks of those I respect. You represent the same impulse that drove me to teach myself the science I saw was being corrupted in high places, where I feel I’m battling not with flesh and blood but with powers and principalities.
Newton led the whole of Cambridge University to oppose King James II trying to foist his henchmen on them in the form of giving some Catholic a degree he hadn’t earned. I’ve nothing against Catholics, the issue was the same as here, authority trampling on freedom. Newton could have been tried for sedition.
Hal Lewis misused the APS address list when he sent unsolicited e-mail to thousands of APS members, including me. I asked him to remove me from his list. I then wrote to the APS President and thanked her for handling the issue in a professional manner. Councilors received a “barrage of e-mail”, with a significant majority opposing changes to the APS statement on climate change. When the APS Council voted on the motion to change the statement, no one favored it. Even the councilor who submitted the motion opposed it. Read the report here . Hal clearly feels strongly about this issue, but the majority of APS members disagree.
It’s a great letter.
Many thanks for writing it.
@richard Sharp
To start; The members of the council
@Janama
“If you ‘d read his letter you’d see he represented 200+ signatories of protest – his opinion is not unique in the society.”
Which is what, half a percent of the membership? Like I said, if a 200 person petition is the standard to call a membership wide vote, then I have no problems with that happening. So this one guy resigned, but before resigning managed to get a sliver of the membership to sign this petition. It’s a data point, but means little on it’s own.
Anthony, I appreciate your words re Martin Luther.
However, Luther’s action entailed consequences, namely that from then on, he had a following, which he took responsibility for, and as a result, gradually bult up a new Church from first principles again..
So are we ready to think about forming the new group that is needed? Or is it still rhetoric? Together with memberships, journals, our own peer-review, can we write up our own truly-hammered-out consensus and/or own-wiki statements on Climate Science, to answer all the points of the Royal Society (or John Cook’s 119 skeptics issues, or whatever)?
Yes, we damn well are capable of answering the Royal Society’s climate statement, sentence for sentence, statement for statement, hypothesis for hypothesis, evidence for evidence. But can we organize ourselves to do it?
REPLY: This topic has been on my mind of late. -Anthony
What next for Dr. Lewis, house arrest, trial by burning at the stake?
The Red Button?
He’s a brave man. Good for him…
Starwatcher says:
October 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“Any particular reason I should weight this guys opinion more then the society’s council that adopted the aforementioned statement?”
No. Absolutely not!
This is about science. A scientist that tells you to trust their opinion is propagating the logical fallacy “appeal to authority/argumentum ad verecundiam”.
If you wish to know whether his words have merit or not, learn the definition of the scientific method. I will post you no links, you should discover it for yourself.
Once that is accomplished, you should learn the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and an “incontrovertable fact”.
Understanding the concepts of repeatability, reproducibility, uncertainty, validation, verification, error analysis, and calibration should give you enough knowledge to make your own decision.
I am an APS member who agrees with Hal Lewis. I signed the petition–that was largely ignored–for a revision of the statement on climate science. The position that the APS has taken is an embarrassment.
For anyone writing to the WaPo, the ‘feedback’ link bounced. I sent a note instead to national@washpost.com, the national news editorial desk.
Go Gauchos!
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 8, 2010 at 7:21 pm
“Anthony, I appreciate your words re Martin Luther.
However, Luther’s action entailed consequences, namely that from then on, he had a following, which he took responsibility for, and as a result, gradually bult up a new Church from first principles again..
So are we ready to think about forming the new group that is needed? Or is it still rhetoric? Together with memberships, journals, our own peer-review, can we write up our own truly-hammered-out consensus and/or own-wiki statements on Climate Science, to answer all the points of the Royal Society (or John Cook’s 119 skeptics issues, or whatever)?
Yes, we damn well are capable of answering the Royal Society’s climate statement, sentence for sentence, statement for statement, hypothesis for hypothesis, evidence for evidence. But can we organize ourselves to do it?
REPLY: This topic has been on my mind of late. -Anthony”
Lucy, we only need to make ONE point:
A non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.
Dr. Lewis
If you or any of the other 200 members of the APS that signed your petition are reading this, I believe that there is one more, and perhaps THE most important contribution that any of you can make, not only for the APS, but for international society at large.
You mention that the action of the president of the society in refusing your petition was unconstitutional.
If that is correct, then surely there is a remedy available to you in the courts.
It has just been reported that a NZ court has found that the NZ “value added” temperature record is faulty.
Surely a US court would also find that the APS president’s refusal was invalid.
Please DO NOT just walk away now.
Please ACT, one more time.
THe sooner this nonsence is crushed, the less the damage that will be done to global economies.
Damage to economies means damage to the welfare of all.
Please ACT now.
What a sad mess “climate science” has made of so many fine institutions. I look back at my childhood, and the respect I have had for science, and almost weep in despair at the current state of things. Maybe some good can come of this whole sordid mess yet. I surely hope so
TGSG
Not to worry.
The money flow is getting ready to stop.
After January.
Thanks Anthony, I have put this up on Peace Legacy also:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/hal-lewis-my-resignation-american-physical-society
Just a note to the pooh pooers who write off anyone making any comment remotely reminding us of a conspiracy: Firstly Hal Lewis said nothing of the sort, but also, human beings do organise conspiracies! All sorts of people from political parties to bank robbers to religious groups; and not all conspiracies are malevolent (though many are). So why, why on Earth shouldn’t the wealthy and powerful organise conspiracies? And why shouldn’t they, being financed so well, be successful? The mental compulsion almost everyone has to reject without investigation any allegation containing “conspiracy” is the outcome of one of the most successful propaganda coups ever. It inoculates the powerful from ever having any malfeasance brought to book, because they always get others to do their dirty work, which will always be portrayable as a conspiracy. Absolutely brilliant – but by no means admirable.
Hal Lewis has shown HIS morals and values for pure science is still in tact.
The current system is creating a like minded “Peer Reviewed” system corrupted science for money in manufacturing an outcome being passed down generations.
Many theories are easily provable in being correct or not by looking at what was missed! Most are incorrect for not including planetary pressure or rotation.
A coil spring is AN IMPOSSIBLITY in current science. But it exists and makes a dam fine proxy to mass compression changes in motion.
Anthony,
I meant to thank you for introducing me to the wonderful world of proxies!
It really has advanced my research.
Newtons’ Law of motion 300 years ago never seen a coil spring invented about 60 years ago. So he never seen motion that can compress mass, change density, store energy and slowly release it.
Jeff T says:
October 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Hal Lewis misused the APS address list when he sent unsolicited e-mail to thousands of APS members, including me. I asked him to remove me from his list. I then wrote to the APS President and thanked her for handling the issue in a professional manner. Councilors received a “barrage of e-mail”, with a significant majority opposing changes to the APS statement on climate change. When the APS Council voted on the motion to change the statement, no one favored it. Even the councilor who submitted the motion opposed it. Read the report here . Hal clearly feels strongly about this issue, but the majority of APS members disagree.
Jeff T, Science is clearly on the side of the skeptics. (That is, we don’t know anything definite, so quit pretending that we do!) This is basically agnosticism to a “T.” You, however, have joined a religious “consensus” CONVINCED that the God is among us. (The God being Power of the Consensus, “X% agree, therefore it shall be. [esp if $ is involved]”)
Listen to that, Jeff…does that sound like science to you? Sure, there exists an intoxicating allure to power of numbers, power of money, power of recognition.
Just quit calling it Science, OK?
When someone of Lewis’ stature speaks, us young guys are compelled to listen.
@Daniel Kozub
Appeal to authority is vastly underrated. I’m an EE (Specifically DSP) who happened to double major in general physics. I guess this gives me a better background then most to get at this stuff. My conclusions; Atmospheric Physics is Fing hard! It makes my head spin.
Did you ever read “The real holes in Climate Science” in Nature awhile back? If not, go read it, no subscription required. I remember thinking when reading through said article “Wow! This is an intimidating field”. Of course I have to basically just take the word of the experts, I don’t know enough to make an informed decision. What’s the alternative, pretend I know? Unsatisfactory.
I dunno, maybe the emperor really doesn’t have any clothes, but I doubt you, me, or any of the other commentators here, or over at Realclimate, know one way or the other. Regardless of the certainty espoused in the comments.
As for the rest; This is just a rehash of the initial value vs. boundary value problem. I do agree with you “incontrovertible fact” should be a phrase not mentioned.
@Daniel Kozub
“A non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.”
It’s been a long time since problems complex to interest the PhD guys have simple analytic solutions.
why would you throw away a connection to an organization you have been a member or for over 67 years? what would be so serious that you find you need to cut ties? this wasn’t a decision he took lightly… the ethical hurdles this man went through to make this decision.
WOW, just wow…..
Starwatcher says on October 8, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Do you actually understand science at all? An analytic solution is not the same as a falsifiable hypothesis.
For example, finding a fossilized human skeleton in strata that can be reliably dated to the Triassic would be a pretty good falsification of much of the current theory of evolution. However, that is not an analytic solution (and you can bet that creationists have been trying to find such things, like human footprints among dino prints).
Truly, a man of SCIENCE has spoken.
I just zipped off a short request to the Post.
This is right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Once a “scientist” (or club) accepts tax funds and the strings that come with them, we know what they are; after that, we’re just arguing over the price.
Having graduated from Hal’s physics department (before global warming was fashionable) It is appropriate that I voted with Hal against the warmist railroad at APS. They don’t represent me either.
Galileo was right – sunspots rule.
It’s often been said that science advances one funeral at a time, but in this instance, we have the exact opposite: a distinguished elder of the scientific community, willing to put his reputation on the line and speak out against the suppression of debate. Wherever we find our pioneers and standard bearers, men like Professor Lewis, Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts, we have a duty to support them in every way we can.
I have watched in dismay as my country succumbed to foetid diseases born of misgovernment, many of which crossed the Atlantic in greater or lesser force and corrupted our ex-Colonies. The worst of these pestilences was the perversion of science in pursuit of fame and funding. At one time, I feared greatly that through subterfuge a great change would be wrought at immense cost without a whimper of protest, for whilst the strength of the English is their acceptance of different views without question, it has been, in this instance, their weakness.
The division that came about some years back and set our nations on different courses can now be seen to have strengthened both, for whilst the United States may at times be criticised for insularity, it is in the same place that great stores of independence and liberty have been found hidden that may enable us to survive this siege, regroup, and eventually sally forth to reconsecrate the scientific method on the altar from which is has been dragged and so foully defiled.
This scientific plague is but one example of the prevalence of men (and women, of course) who place personal gain ahead of personal integrity. They may be seen throughout our society, in science – and no field is entirely exempt – and particularly in politics. Much that is wrong can be laid at the feet of the inadequate choices offered our electorate, and it is in this way, perhaps that the great climate scandal, which has been so exploitative of this situation, can eventually perhaps offer us a way out. Let those who have led us in this battle stand for election, and we will elect them. Let them promise us only that they will govern to the best of their ability, evaluate every matter rationally, and protect our liberty. Honour and personal integrity will be their badge of office, and they cannot fail to serve better than the moral cowardice and feather-bedding that are the badge of our current malodorous governors.
David, UK says:
October 8, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Reading this made me very sad – not so much sad for this fine, honest scientist and gentleman who leaves the Society with his integrity firmly intact (although that is of course a very sad fact). I am more sad to have yet another reaffirmation of the politically- and money-driven state of today’s “science.” And sad to be reminded that there are millions of brainwashed sheep out there who will happily label this man a “denier,” and a “lunatic on the fringe,” doubtless accompanied by accusations of being in the pay of Big Oil. There will be more still who simply close their eyes to this, deep in denial (yes, the word is more aptly applied to YOU), and carry on spreading alarm, business-as-usual.
——————————————
This was my reaction as well. I was actually sickened to have so firmly confirmed what I suspected all along. Even Hal and 200 petitioners could do nothing to raise the debate in APS circles for over a year. But it also made me even more impressed for what Anthony and WUWT are doing to expose the lie of CAGW!
Whilst my previous post might perhaps have suggested otherwise, I am, in fact, hip to you kids’ modern jive.
“Yes, we damn well are capable of answering the Royal Society’s climate statement, sentence for sentence, statement for statement, hypothesis for hypothesis, evidence for evidence. But can we organize ourselves to do it?”
“REPLY: This topic has been on my mind of late. -Anthony”
There exists a unique opportunity to crowd-source support and funding for a new political movement of independent political candidates dedicated to rational government.
I couldn’t help but contrast Lewis’ eloquent words with the following example: “The task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument… Instead we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement…. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.” (Ereaut, G. & Segnit, N., 2006. “Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?”. Institute for Public Policy, London.) It’s part of a quote at the head of Chapter 8 from Bob Carter’s book, “Climate : the counter consensus”, 2010.
Wow, I just googled Hal Lewis resignation and the count was 198,000!
It is with great sadness that I read this letter of resignation. It as others have said, only confirms that many of our once highly respected scientific organizations are rotten to the core.
Having made the same sort of decision years ago when I walked away from a career because I realized the organization was so broken and politicized that I could no longer in good conscious stand by silently as they manipulated and twisted every fact to serve a political agenda, I know how agonizing it is to finally pull the plug.
Sir you have my greatest respect and my most sincere best wishes.
You may have fired a shot that will be heard around the world (we can only hope).
If not the silence will be a confirmation in its own way of how corrupt the media has also become due to the same self serving behaviors that have destroyed science and turned it into a gun for hire to produce what ever the highest bidder is requesting.
As others have commented, I once saw science and engineering as fields relatively uncontaminated by politics and assumed that political intrigue in science was something that belonged to histories and biographies of long dead individuals.
Sadly as in all human enterprises, political corruption and greed for money and power, eventually push the scum to the top of most organizations, and only by lancing the boil, can we eliminate the infection.
I truly hope that the general public takes notice of your courageous stand and gives it the respect it is due.
I also salute your action!
Larry
“Wow, I just googled Hal Lewis resignation and the count was 198,000!”
A little optimistic – that gets hits for ‘Hal’, ‘Lewis’, and ‘resignation’ in various combinations, or even just the same page.
Dr. Mann is concerned with unwarranted political interference with science? His real concern is laid out in the second paragraph:
As a scientist, I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.
Mikey knows that a Republican victory on November means he will be testifying before a Congressional inquiry. He also knows that perjury is a felony. Rock, meet hard place.
I wonder how many members of the APS read WUWT on a regular basis, perhaps space could be made available for members to air their concerns and opinions to a larger audience if the APS tries to stifle and suppress dissent.
I am sure that WUWT reaches a wider audience than the APS can hope to match so perhaps a third party platform will encourage APS members to speak out. My own guess is that the APS will try to freeze out and silence dissenters and sceptics and critics so if they try to steal the ‘microphone of vocal dissent’ then maybe the placing of another that they cannot silence will help to open up the APS to serious debate.
Seems like there’s an omission here. What exactly is the APS statement on climate change that Lewis objects too so strongly?
If anyone wishes to read the commentary, it’s here with the above statement: National Policy: 07.1 Climate Change
Part of the commentary says: “Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.”
Isn’t just about everyone calling for better science in this field?
I am in particular heartened that in their Energy Policy for the 21st Century statement, the APS says:
“Since 1996, demand for oil and natural gas has continued to grow with the expansion and globalization of the world’s economy. In addition, our nation’s dependence on imported energy has increased, and the effects of burning fossil fuels on the global environment are becoming a major concern. The Council of the American Physical Society believes that the use of renewable energy sources, the adoption of new ways of producing and using fossil fuels, increased consideration of safe and cost effective uses of nuclear power, and the introduction of energy-efficient technologies can, over time, promote the United States’ energy security and reduce stress on the world’s environment.”
I think that’s an entirely reasonable position to take. Even if you discount the effects of CO2 on global temperatures, such things as ocean acidification and the influence of black soot aerosols ought to be reasons to move toward cleaner fossil-fuel technologies and reliable, high-yield alternative energy sources.
u.k.(us) says:
October 8, 2010 at 6:49 pm
WOW
Talk about Deja Vu, the address seems to be an outline of our current situation.
The link seems to lose audio after 10-11 minutes, but it exactly describes our current situation. He was warning us,… now others seem to be trying to take advantage.
Live and learn.
Or just vote.
Thanks for the link.
u.k.(us) You’re most welcome. Here’s a better link with audio and transcript in its entirety:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
Excerpt: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.” (Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address) http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
I won’t trust a group of people who insist that they are smarter than me, and yet don’t know the meaning of the word incontrovertible.
Either they’re engaging in the hyperbole that comes from political garbage , or they’re a bunch of morons.
Political hacks and clueless blowhards tend to be the people that rise to the top of an organization, so neither one is surprising.
Starwatcher,
You are advancing the case of accepting an authority who has already been shown to be corrupt? Hilariously stupid argument. A lot of us with science backgrounds have been digging into the science and politics of climatology ever since ClimateGate. We’ve found found that the climate science is corrupt but not settled.
Starting in January, an open, honest, and thorough investigation of Climategate and the IPCC will start.
BTW, Kevin Trenbirth has already announced that the climate models confidence intervals will have to be widened quite a bit for the next IPCC report. The wider the CI, the less faith you have in your model. Kevin also mentioned that maybe they shouldn’t be doing predictions at all (i.e. the science is not settled).
Hal Lewis is a great man. The classy thing to do is to either pay respect to the man for his courage and honesty (so rare in science nowadays) or just be quiet. You are not helping your cause.
[SNIP – Brendan, I will not have you call Dr. Lewis names, either rephrase your words or get the heck off the blog. – Anthony]
Anthony – you should extend an invitation to Dr. Lewis to write a guest article about his experience.
What’s up with the photo labeled “Hal Lewis”? His letter says he joined APS 67 years ago, but the person in the photo looks to be in his 30s.
REPLY: The only photo available that could be found, if you can find a more recent one leave a note.
AGW always was and always will be the product of 2 of the most corrupt Western Governments in world history. The US & the UK.
Now. Watch the human flotsam at the APS came out and, with massive Govt media support, take out the lamb who is trying to protect the sheeple.
regards
Richard Feynman also resigned from honors. Hal Lewis is in good company:
@Daniel Kozub
“Appeal to authority is vastly underrated. I’m an EE (Specifically DSP) who happened to double major in general physics. I guess this gives me a better background then most to get at this stuff. My conclusions; Atmospheric Physics is Fing hard! It makes my head spin.
Did you ever read “The real holes in Climate Science” in Nature awhile back? If not, go read it, no subscription required. I remember thinking when reading through said article “Wow! This is an intimidating field”. Of course I have to basically just take the word of the experts, I don’t know enough to make an informed decision. What’s the alternative, pretend I know? Unsatisfactory.
I dunno, maybe the emperor really doesn’t have any clothes, but I doubt you, me, or any of the other commentators here, or over at Realclimate, know one way or the other. Regardless of the certainty espoused in the comments.
As for the rest; This is just a rehash of the initial value vs. boundary value problem. I do agree with you “incontrovertible fact” should be a phrase not mentioned.”
Okay Starchaser, since you are an electrical engineer with a degree in physics, I will attempt to put my argument into terms that you can understand.
When you have results of a test that are unexpected and unexplained, do you:
A. Determine whether your equipment is working properly.
B. Convince yourself or others that the results are normal and within specifications.
C. Adjust the data so that it fits within your expectations and specifications.
Assuming that we do not have any computers or software that are self-aware and that a random number generator is never random, is it ever possible for a computer model to output a result that isn’t exactly what was programmed in to it? (Assuming no mechanical, electronic, or other errors.)
How will we know if any or all of the climate models are accurate at predicting the future?
Please ask yourself how you would know if the emperor had any clothes. Tell me if you’d like.
I have not read the Nature article that you referenced. But I have bookmarked it and will read it as soon as I am done with this post. Thank you.
It took me years to wrap my head around atmospheric physics. I’ve only recently considered myself to be knowledgeable enough to discuss hydrology. I’m currently researching entropy, which I find myself lacking-in at the professional level. If you care enough to read and comment on science blogs, you have the ability to edjucate yourself enough to make a decision with which you are satisfied.
“Standing on the shoulders of geniuses” is what has allowed the scientific community to get where we are today. But that would no longer be possible if we are not sure of their footing. That is not an appeal to authority. The dark ages broke that chain, and science had to start from scratch.
“@Daniel Kozub
“A non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.”
It’s been a long time since problems complex to interest the PhD guys have simple analytic solutions.”
My post is getting long, so I’ll answer this breifly and without comment:
Astronomy, agricultural science, drug discovery, chemistry, physiology, particle physics, metrology, etc…
Thanks to Prof Lewis.
Yes, we can defund climate nonsense perhaps in January. But it may be 2012 before the CAGW Medusa will be slain.
A personnell change at NOAA and GISS could do it, and this puss filled boil can finally be lanced. I hope that Issa and others know and plan this.
Jeff T says:
October 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Hal Lewis misused the APS address list when he sent unsolicited e-mail to thousands of APS members, including me. I asked him to remove me from his list. I then wrote to the APS President and thanked her for handling the issue in a professional manner. Councilors received a “barrage of e-mail”, with a significant majority opposing changes to the APS statement on climate change. When the APS Council voted on the motion to change the statement, no one favored it. Even the councilor who submitted the motion opposed it. Read the report here . Hal clearly feels strongly about this issue, but the majority of APS members disagree.
**************************************
Jeff – that is the whole point. Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote.
All the best.
Simply having one person resign, however important they may be, will have little effect, it will simply be hushed up and sink into deliberate obscurity. Instead, here is what SHOULD be done:
Fists, contact all those people on the 200 meber list who wanted the petition, have them contact all their physician friends, who contact all theirs, etc. In short, either get the APS mailing list or make your own. Then they all write a lettet telling the APS to shape up or they will ALL resign, en mass. They will not shape up, of course, so you all resign en mass and then form the American Physicians Society or some such, with a logo as similar as possible to the old APS. They won’t like that, they may even want to take legal action, you want this, it brings in publicity to how they broke the old APU’s constitution and allows you to pull out even more members away from the old APS, and may allow legal action of your own. Your new society can even copy the old ones constitution (and should, deliberatly and with publicity), with a new provision, “we mean it this time”, and penalties for breaking it.
Meanwhile, if they broke the APU’s constitution, see if that can be used to throw them out of office, or dissolve the APU, or is grounds for a legal suit (against the APS or individuals in it) since you sent them membership dues and that means they have certain legal obligations. If you want tactics, see how the liberals have been doing it for years, repeat their tactics back at them. For instance, have they or do they resort to name calling when all this goes down, sue them for slander, do they lie about you, libel, etc. Meanwhile, if the old APS wants to do ANYTHING, find some reason you can bring before a friendly judge to bring an injunction to stop it, thats the way the envoronmentalists do it. Are there obvious, or even not so obvious conflicts of interest with some members recieving money to express certain views or to make it look like the old APS supports certain views, see if that is grounds for leagal action, harrassing legal action (the environmentalist tactic), removal from APS office, publicise it, organize boycotts of any company involved, protests, etc. Picket in front of any APS meeting, the picketers including former members (publicise this, put it on the picket sdigns) and as many like minded people can join as you can get (contact the Tea Party folks, mention the “cap and trade” tax), get students involved, they love this sort of thing.
In short, it’s time to do to them what they have been doing to us for years, and it’s past time expecting them to listen to reason or fight fair. It’s time to turn opposition to AGW into a movement. If we do not, we will first lose freedoms, then our economies, then in the collpase that follows, possibly our lives. Or do you really think the world can support 6+ billion people today with a tech base similar to 1850?
Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post.
How does the Hockey Stick hold up to science?
Just as an aside on the broader side of this – I think this Mann piece does seem to expose a weakness in Western judicial systems that allow accused persons and their defense lawyers to go to the papers and plead their case. If the prosecution were to do the same thing it would be considered prejudicial to prospects of a fair trial, as the newspaper reports may (so it is claimed by defense lawyers) influence potential jurors. I just don’t see why, when the defense does it, it isn’t considered equally prejudicial to the prospects of a fair trial too. Isn’t that what Mann is trying to do here, influence public opinion in his favor prior to the Virginian court action?
I’ve done my bit already.
Google for “American Physical Society” scam
and click on anything about Hal Lewis. Most of the first few pages of results are about him. The APS and other “science” organsations need to be taught a lesson.
Jeff T says:
October 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Hal Lewis misused the APS address list when he sent unsolicited e-mail to thousands of APS members, including me. I asked him to remove me from his list. I then wrote to the APS President and thanked her for handling the issue in a professional manner. Councilors received a “barrage of e-mail”, with a significant majority opposing changes to the APS statement on climate change. When the APS Council voted on the motion to change the statement, no one favored it. Even the councilor who submitted the motion opposed it. Read the report here . Hal clearly feels strongly about this issue, but the majority of APS members disagree.
Thanks for the link. I found in there that the people agreeing with the present APS statement were running two to one for it. This of course means that there are a lot more than 200 people against the statement.
Let us suppose that this was a genuine blind poll with all the checks of impartiality. In a genuine poll of physicist members an extra question should have been imperative:
Are you in any direct way getting funding from supporting AGW theory and practice?
I would suspect that the yes to this question would be running two to one too, i.e. the people supporting the statement were the people whose livelihood hung on the statement.
I met Prof Hal Lewis at a conference in, I think it was 1976. I will never forget the talk he gave after dinner one evening. He spoke for an hour without any notes and was truly inspiring; the room was packed and all there were enthralled. A scientist of honour and integrity. He is one of the last survivors of the great physicists of the second half of the 20th century.
His words of wisdom should be widely disseminated.
How true that is. I was going to study physics 40 years ago. Many of the TOWERING giants of the Manhattan Project and before were still alive. Who does physics have now? And what have they accomplished? Nothing of importance. I am over 60, and we were told in the 1950s that fusion was going to provide us with limitless power, made from hydrogen. We are still waiting.
I would only recommend that the leaders of the 200 should have – still can – go talk to lawyers and try to get a court order that the leadership abide by the society’s constitution. Their constitution is a legal document, after all. It’s purpose should be written so as to lay out responsibilities and rights, plus limitations on abuses of powers. The leadership can only abuse its powers if the lay members let themselves get pushed around.
Hal Lewis: (on the global warming scam) “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Thank you, Hal Lewis. Shame on those who continue to promote it; although I can certainly appreciate the fear of many in letting go of the tiger’s tail.
The IPCC’s predicted high CO2-AGW is meaningless because it seems to depends on a cooling ‘cloud albedo effect’ correction derived via a semi-empirical relationship between cloud optical depth and albedo dating from 1980. It makes a false assumption about what happens in thick clouds: ‘reflection’ from the surfaced of water droplets, e.g.: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/
There’s no such physics yet no-one has apparently picked up this serious error. The reality is that if you pollute thick clouds, the albedo may decrease substantially, another form of AGW meaning you have to rein back on the CO2 effect.
I have still to make up my mind whether this, the biggest scientific mistake in History, is a scam dating from about 2003 when the ‘cloud albedo effect’, the last ditch hope of the high feedback models, could not be proved experimentally but to be kept in AR4.
People here are arguing that the APS Council took a poll.
That is not the same thing as having a Topic Group, where things get presented and hashed out.
I watched the video of a debate on AGW with Michael Crichton and Richard Linzen on the anti-AGW side. A vote was taken beforehand. A vote was taken after the debate. I can’t recall the exact numbers, but the anti-AGW side won over an additional 20% or so to their side.
I’ve heard – but cannot confirm – that such debates always come out with the anti- side winning over people.
A Topic Group would possibly have people change their minds. A poll does not present anything except answers to pre-packaged questions – questions which can be stacked.
Those who point out that many of the physicists’ careers are wrapped around – that sounds correct, but we may never know.
The Manhattan Project saved a lot of lives in WWII, but since then Big Science (driven by money) has distorted science. Especially physics, IMHO. Physicists since then haven’t done squat compared to the 65 years before that.
Oakden Wolf says:
October 8, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Even if you discount the effects of CO2 on global temperatures, such things as ocean acidification and the influence of black soot aerosols ought to be reasons to move toward cleaner fossil-fuel technologies and reliable, high-yield alternative energy sources.
You seem to be one step before the Hodja principle. Hodja is a wise judge/fool, as the case required, in stories told in the Anatolian tradition of Asia minor.
This is the pertinent story:
Early one morning Hodja started beating his wife.
A concerned villager tried to intervene: “Hodja effendi, why are you beating her, what has she done to deserve a beating”?
Hodja replied: “I do not know, but for sure, she does.”
It is a step before ” Kill them all, God will sort out the guilty and innocent”.
In other words what you are advocating is not the scientific method: trial, error, remeasurement etc, but politics: all means are useful to achieve the ends.
“Having first determined the question according to his will, man then resorts to experience, and bending her to conformity with his placets, leads her about like a captive in a procession.” Francis Bacon.
Mr. Lewis is in very good company on this one.
Dr Lewis is due a lot of respect. Michael Mann, on the other hand…
“My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public.”
And the public must stand up to blatant abuse from scientists who mislead and distract from the truth.
“They are hurting American science.”
No, Michael Mann, you and your ilk are hurting American science.
“And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too.”
And when warmist arguments fail you begin to wail – think of the cheeeeeeldren.
Pathetic!
This is your beef? Well I can see how this would be troubling. That incorrigible young tyke, how devious!
You tattled? The lady teacher came to your rescue? Did she bring in grief counselors and tell you everything will be ok! 😉 Naturally the appearance of an email arriving at your (Taxpayer funded?) computer which contains contrarian heresy was simply too painful to ignore. It couldn’t be discarded like Viagra or Nigerian spam? Or perhaps your institution filters the spam ahead of time which made the arrival of this email even more unsettling, arriving in your inbox all by its lonesome, beckoning you to ‘click me’.
Just what the heck is unsolicited e-mail anyway? [anything that deviates from
ChurchAGW dogma group-think?]. I mean, any email sent to a list is by definition unsolicited! Any email not sent as a reply is unsolicited! How exactly does one solicit email? You can certainly solicit an email reply. (Yeah, I know you said misused the APS address list, but that still does not explain the use of the term unsolicited if you really think about it).Seriously, I think Hal Lewis did exactly the right thing here. He made some squishy little APS members face their true demons: unsolicited emails containing world-view shattering thoughts. For this alone he should get a Nobel.
The reformation begins!
“Even if you discount the effects of CO2 on global temperatures, such things as ocean acidification and the influence of black soot aerosols ought to be reasons to move toward cleaner fossil-fuel technologies and reliable, high-yield alternative energy sources.”
Yes, but CARBON-Mongering will do absolutelly nothing to us move toward that. In fact it will muddy the waters and move us away from that goal. Science is stalled and thrown back for years by dogma and suppression.
Following my last comment – after multiple attempts at emailing the Washington Post I give up. Each attempt (using various email links on the WP site) either results in a “delivery failure” or the latest attempt resulted in “I am out of the office until 10/18/2010.”
Anyone else had any success?
T. Goodwin: The core of AGW science is a bunch of computer nerds who know no science, have produced none, yet have managed to convince government agencies that they should be funded.
Who are you to claim that the climate researchers know no science? You spew your conspiracy theories on climate science, when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?
Of course, I will never find out because I am not worthy for your reply.
As always there are lots of comments phrased to imply or embrace the concepts of “conspiracy”, “fraud” and “tax-payers cash” being paid to Mann and others. I think Mann is a Charalatan but his actions are not about conspiracy or fraud per se, they are about patronage. All of the researchers involved such as Mann, Jones etc rely on patronage from the state and others (remember they have created consortia which also provide funding). By over-selling their research and theories they can continue to enjoy patronage. Anyone who challenges the competence of their hypothesis is endangering their patronage. It also endangers the patronage that supports their institutions hence CRU and Mann’s university exonerate them in superficial investigations. This is all human nature and would be relatively benign (lots of mediocre scientists work in superficial or irrelevent research areas) if it weren’t for the actions taken by governments and large organisations. It is in the latter category that the potential for fraud is created, rather like Enron. When governments create a financial framework (subsidies) that artificially favours certain actions then the opportunity for fraud becomes significant. Like shining arc lights on solar panels because the subsidies make it pay!
Hal Lewis is a formidable man. He has this rare and somewhat outdated quality called integrity. Just read the Oral History Transcript of an interview prepared by Dr. Finn Aaserud in Santa Barbara, CA 6 July 1986 at the Niels Bohr Library & Archives site to see what I mean. His character reminds me of the late Richard Feynman. Honest, curious, matter-of-fact like, enjoying his life tremendously. A physicist.
I watched the video of a debate on AGW with Michael Crichton and Richard Linzen on the anti-AGW side. A vote was taken beforehand. A vote was taken after the debate. I can’t recall the exact numbers, but the anti-AGW side won over an additional 20% or so to their side.
— feet2thefire @ October 9, 2010 at 12:37 am
Yes, that was a humdinger! Before the debate the audience polled 57% to 30% for Global Warming; after: 42% to 46%. (Undecideds made up the rest.) See http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/ .
Gavin Schmidt was on the losing side. There was some real heartburn over at RealClimate afterward.
Of course, when you’ve got big guns like Lindzen and Crichton it’s understandable, but Schmidt & Co. hurt themselves with their arrogant attitudes.
Amusingly, they cited the poor reception Continental Drift Theory received initially as though that story — one in which the underdog triumphs against consensus — favored the Global Warming side.
The Global Warming side would have been better off had the debate not taken place.
Recently I googled for public debates on AGW. It’s true — usually the AGW side loses, then makes excuses. Their strategy these days is to pretend it’s like scientists debating anti-evolutionists, and that the proper defense is to refuse to debate, even back out of debates as James Cameron did a few weeks ago.
The problem, though, is that they need votes from ordinary citizens in order to pursue the mega-expensive global warming agenda. Like it or not (and they definitely don’t) they must convince voters to get on board, so bills like cap-and-trade can pass.
But after ten years of flat temperatures plus the recent climate scandals and worldwide economic meltdown, ordinary people have turned against global warming.
There is no getting them back without some effort, but if the AGW people won’t debate openly and can’t twist arms politically, there’s not much they can do except PR campaigns (“No Pressure”) and fake debate on their blogs, and hope that the weather turns hot and nasty for the next several years.
“Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.”
IF?????????????
A number of people here have said that Dr Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor at U Cal, Santa Barbara, should do this, or that, or take things through the Courts etc. etc.
Might I respectfully suggest that Professor Lewis had been a member of the APS for 67 years! Assuming he joined as a student at 18 (rather unlikely) he must be 85 years old. If he joined after completing his undergraduate course this will raise him to, say, 88/89 years. Again, if he joined after getting his PhD he would be 90+ years.
I am not going to ask him or anyone else to give his exact age but I would ask whether it is reasonable to expect a man of his age to take the kind of actions some have suggested. He has done his part (at cost to himself) in resigning from a Society he has obviously loved and has been a significant part of his life.
I cannot know whether or not it will have any effect. But he has played a large role and deserves our respect. Maybe it should be the role of younger members to think where things should go from here.
Professor Lewis, you have my admiration and my respect for your principled stance and your carefully reasoned and superbly written letter of resignation.
Desmong (and others of similar ilk); I don’t have the words to express the disgust your peurile attempt to smear Professor Lewis induces in me.
I read the WaPo/Mann letter. Yuk!!
Oakden Wolf says:
October 8, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Seems like there’s an omission here. What exactly is the APS statement on climate change that Lewis objects too so strongly?
========
No, I don’t believe there was any omission. In fact, that to which Prof. Lewis was objecting was contained in the very text you quoted:
From Prof. Lewis’ letter:
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incontrovertible
Some of the synonyms listed on the same page are: certain, inarguable, irrefutable, unchallengable, etc.
I will readily admit that I’m not a scientist; however, in the past eleven months I have learned that in the field of “climate science” the word “trick” apparently carries no connotation whatsover similar to “deceit”, which is inherent in the common understanding of the word “trick”.
In light of the above, and since you had determined that there was an “omission”, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what exactly one should infer from the phrase “incontrovertible evidence” as it pertains to “climate science”.
I noticed that the text you quoted included the following:
That sounds very, very alarming – and, to be honest, very authoritative (in more ways than one!) But it certainly doesn’t sound like science to my ear.
P.S. Anthony, I’ve just posted the following comment in response to the Mann piece:
hro001 says:
October 9, 2010 at 4:35 am
“whose stature and respect was earned the hard way,”
aaack! “were earned”
Memo to self: compose important comments outside the little box, then proof ‘n paste!
@desmong says:
October 9, 2010 at 3:00 am
“Who are you to claim that the climate researchers know no science? You spew your conspiracy theories on climate science, when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?”
————————————————————————————–
You are missing the point, making a living out of science is not an conspiracy and not all scientists are in it for the money, actually I think this is what Harold Lewis resignation is all about, did you read it ???
from Edmund Burke
“For evil to triumph
all that is necessary is
that good men
do nothing.”
A few good men and women cannot save the World.
I fear that all is lost.
When the book, “The Rise and Fall of the Western World” is writen,
let it be noted that we decayed from within and were then enslaved
by our betters.
I don’t know if an organized resignation campaign would do much good. It might just look like “pressure politics” and sour grapes. The way to minimize that impression would be to deliberately NOT solicit resignations, but OTOH to have a website where members who choose to spontaneously resign can post their names and their endorsement of a statement charging the APS with shoddy behavior for failing to form a Topic Group, for commissioning a kangaroo court, etc. (Individuals could also post their own additional comments if they desired.)
If a few prominent physicists resigned on this matter and made a stink about the APS’s outrageous behavior, it would give the APS a black eye and might well force the formation of a TG and an impartial review of AGW.
This in turn would encourage other scientific Societies to do likewise — especially if a few of their prominent members also resigned and started petition/protest websites calling for impartial reviews of the evidence.
Good luck with this:
*************
“What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post.
Let’s see if they have enough integrity to provide a counterpoint. – Anthony”
*************
WaPo just sold NewsWeek. For $1 (Not a typo! One only dollar.)
And WaPo agreed to pay off some $10 million in NewsWeek debt.
There is a reason why NewsWeek is worthless. (Actually worth less than worthless!) But I doubt that the WaPo gets “why”. And they aren’t going to change.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
PS: Lewis isn’t just a member of APS, but a “Fellow.” (I.e., a Grand Poobah.) If several additional “Fellows” resign, that’ll have an impact.
desmong says:
October 9, 2010 at 3:00 am
“Who are you to claim that the climate researchers know no science? You spew your conspiracy theories on climate science, when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?”
Of course they know their science, they know how flaky the models are, they know a gradual reduction in grid dimensions doesn’t make them more accurate, what they need to achieve any increase in precision is such a big increase in computing power that it’s not in sight for the next 2 decades; they know it gets harder and harder to finance the giant investments for computing power, it gets harder and harder to justify… they’re running scared. They’re running from debate.
I just don’t see how climategate establishes that AGW is a scam as this guy claims. Past climate reconstructions are a small part of AGW. Believing that climategate alone proves AGW is a scam is not scientific That reflects a rather poor understanding if the science. I’m not surprised his organization has therefore found him unpersuasive
Seriously, there is too much blaming the other side here when climate change skeptics should be blaming themselves for not being persuasive. In the democracy of ideas, the best ideas win. If an idea is winning, eg AGW, that’s because mire scientists find it persuasive. The skeptical scientists may be right, but they should stop whining and do more science to prove they are right. I don’t see this guy doing anything to prove AGW is wrong. He’s just whining
“The true physicists will lead the way.” (I think it’s in the Bible or something!) Michael Mann should be in jail.
desmong writes:
“Who are you to claim that the climate researchers know no science?”
Sir, I have a standing challenge to you and all pro-AGW scientists: produce one reasonably well-confirmed physical hypothesis about climate that cannot be deduced from the description of the CO2 molecule and that is not simply taken from a computer model. You cannot do it. No climate scientist can do it. There are no such hypotheses. There is no AGW science.
You are very talented at fallacious reasoning. Your earlier response, quoted above, manages to be an “appeal to authority,” “question begging,” and an “ad hominem” all in just one brief sentence.
Jeff T says: October 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm
The fault lies further back, with APS. What right do they have to issue a statement about climate science without consulting their members and allowing their members to speak freely?
Memo to UK Govt, I think Professor Lewis has identified some cost saving opportunities for you.
Cliff says:
October 9, 2010 at 6:13 am
I don’t see this guy doing anything to prove AGW is wrong. He’s just whining
The proof is already in peer reviewed literature. The warmers are ignoring it.
Any physicist who reads seriously the “physics justification” chapters of IPCC’s AR4 knows that most of it is nonsense. When I read it I would stop and walk around in my office literally pulling my hair, some statements, claims and plots were so preposterous and self evidently nonsense. Hal Lewis has just put it down in words.
It is the AGW community that has to come up with papers whose physics would support CO2 produced catastrophic warming. Not playstation models, physics models. And let me tell you that modeling is decades away of the precision necessary to remotely reproduce the complexity of weather and climate. And if you want wrong, consider, even weather predicted for a few days is wrong very often, and it is the same type of computer models used to justify AGW for the next century!!!.
Yeah, Cliff, he also sounds depressed and perhaps suicidal, don’t ya think. (wink wink)
desmong says:
October 9, 2010 at 3:00 am
T. Goodwin: The core of AGW science is a bunch of computer nerds who know no science, have produced none, yet have managed to convince government agencies that they should be funded.
Who are you to claim that the climate researchers know no science? You spew your conspiracy theories on climate science, when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?
Of course, I will never find out because I am not worthy for your reply.
————————
97% of climate scientists agree with their position on climate science (climate change) which brings in billions of dollars of funding. Well that’s a consensus and the science must be correct. By the way, have you ever been an academic researcher like me? Have you ever had to “grub for funding”? Interesting research gets funding. “hot topics” get funding. Boring climate research that shows the climate has been naturally variable for millennia does not get funding. Follow the money!
Your logic is like saying 97% of Republicans believe in Republican dogma, (ergo their dogma must be correct).
In matters like this, every physicist must ask himself “What would Richard Feynman do?” I believe that this gentleman has done exactly what Richard Feynman would do, and I applaud him.
I dropped my APS membership many years ago. It’s a political organization, not a scientific one. I am strongly considering canceling my IEEE membership for exactly the same reason.
APS, AAAS, ACS, even the National Academy of Sciences… they were all corrupted by the siren song of funding associated with AGW alarmism. Don’t believe me? Take a look at their full statements on AGW. Invariably their statements about “incontrovertible evidence” are followed by a laundry list of urgent funding priorities related to our ability to predict, prevent, and/or mitigate the effects of AGW. It may not be good science, but it’s good business for the professional societies.
Rudy Baum’s reprehensible posturing as editor of the ACS’ membership magazine, Chemical and Engineering News, may not be a direct result of this, but it is certainly tolerated since it fits into the self-serving party line. ACS has a small splinter group, loosely organized by Peter Bonk, that proposed a rather mildly alternative statement on AGW. I don’t know where that ended up. ACS mostly ignored them, I think. Peter also had the temerity to propose a symposium attempting to really expose the state of the science (18-24 months ago), and he invited all the other ACS Divisions to cosponsor it. It was astonishing to see how quickly the bicoastal professorial class trashed his proposal.
As for Hal Lewis, bravo for his letter. But I expect APS will ignore it. There will always be thousands more physicists standing in line to be dubbed APS Fellow. Few may be so digtinguished as Dr. Lewis, but there are so many scientists who hunger for the approbation of their peers. APS will simply continue as before.
Cliff, you say whining. Nearly everyone else here says standing up for his principles.
Dr Lewis resigned because the voices of himself and two hundred colleagues were effectively silenced and the true science ignored. Whining is what Michael Mann has done in the Washing Post op-ed.
Cliff says on October 9, 2010 at 6:13 am
Fail. Science is not a democracy, not a popularity contest and not a contest to see which ideas are pleasing or persuasive. The word consensus is also not a mechanism of science.
Do the concepts of testing hypotheses, and falsifiability mean anything to you?
desmong says:
October 9, 2010 at 3:00 am
… 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?
Anyone who quotes the 97% number only prove how little they understand. As has been well documented, most skeptics would have answered that particular question exactly the same. We all know that CO2 by itself has a warming effect.
So, by quoting this idiotic number you have now shown everyone how little you know about the debate. Not surprising given your previous posts above.
Cliff says:
October 9, 2010 at 6:13 am
“persuasive. The skeptical scientists may be right, but they should stop whining and do more science to prove they are right. ”
So you say reconstructions of the past are not the only battlefield, fine, so what do we have besides that? Guys like Hansen who say that in the year 2000 Manhattan will be underwater (which didn’t happen), models that projected a warming that didn’t happen over the last 10 years, more models that project more warming in the future that may or may not happen, ….
What should the skeptics do in your opinion? Create equally power-hungry models that project a cooling?
What you call the “science” that is so “persuasive” about AGW are mere model projections, and the AGW scientists know full well that there are many physical processes like cloud formation and convection that cannot be realistically modelled for the time being, – the emperor has no clothes, it’s only politicians, prechers like Al Gore and scientifically illiterate journalists who believe or are led to believe there is any certainty. If there is any serious consensus at all, it must be the consensus that all the AGW climate projections come with huge error bars and huge assumptions.
There is nothing to be done for the skeptics to dismantle this edifice; it is self-dismantling.
Cliff says:
October 9, 2010 at 6:13 am
Cliff, the concept of falsifiability is that measured data which contradicts the original hypothesis nullifies it, i.e. when the earth’s climate failed to behave as the hypothesis predicted – (think cooler despite a continuing increase in CO2) – the AGW hypothesis was blown.
Changing the data, inventing data, inverting data in an attempt to maintain that the hypothesis was still valid – that’s not science. Tweeking computer programs to torture data until it confesses, that’s not science. Computer programs don’t generate data, they generate numbers. Real scientists try to see if the little numbers correspond to the real world.
So the upshot of this is, Chris, you need to associate a little more with real scientists, and a little less with programming dilettantes pretending that IT is real science.
Thanks to Berenyi Peter for the link to Professor Hal Lewis Oral History Transcript. Compelling story of a remarkable career and now this latest act of integrity.
Jerry says:
October 9, 2010 at 7:21 am
“In matters like this, every physicist must ask himself “What would Richard Feynman do?” I believe that this gentleman has done exactly what Richard Feynman would do, and I applaud him.”
Actually, Feynman would have challenged them to debate. There would have been no takers. Then Feynman would have ridiculed their reasoning in some public forum. I do not mean to hold Professor Lewis to Feynman’s standards. Feynman was exceptional.
I have come to realise there is one constant in life, no matter which organisation one looks at, public or private, the in-group makes the decisions and holds the power. We see it in government and the world’s most powerful companies all the way down to our local volunteer boards. We need more people like Hal Lewis to tell it like it really is. This is the only way to diminish the in-group’s power.
Lord Acton (1887): “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
With all due respect to Dr. Lewis, this attempt to cast disparagement the APS’ way is nothing new. This is simply the latest chapter in a lengthy campaign by himself and a handful of others to portray an illusory suppressed dissent within the ranks of the APS, a campaign filled with letters to the APS governance, scientific journals, and Congress along with mass media coverage of a decidedly non-story.
It is interesting to note that Dr. Lewis considered this nefarious “secret committee” to be “a high level subcommittee of respected senior scientists” when he and others wrote to Nature in July of last year. Only when that committee advised the APS Council to reject the petition of Lewis and others to revise the Society’s policy stance did the members of that committee become the equivalent of Hitler’s brown shirts.
It’s also interesting to note that the APS POPA committee tasked with composing a policy addendum engaged Dr. Lindzen among others in the development of that addendum and solicited feedback from the Society’s entire membership on its content. Dissatisfied with the results, the solicitation was disparaged by the original petitioners with Dr. Robert Austin, a petition co-signer with Dr. Lewis, wanting to put science within the APS up to popular vote.
I respect Dr. Lewis and his contributions throughout his career to the scientific endeavor, but his efforts over the past couple of years to disparage those with whom he disagrees is simple grandstanding and nothing more.
desmong says:
October 8, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Karl: It is like someone driving down a four-lane road, listening to the radio that some driver is driving the wrong way. And this driver says, ‘- Oh, the fool. They are all driving the wrong way!’.
=============
The analogy doesn’t work. The side of the road you drive on is merely a matter of practical convention. No side holds more inherent truth than the other.
The story of the child who points out the obvious and says: “The Emperor is naked!” would make a better analogy.
Here’s a June 2010 picture of Hal Lewis with his heroic wife Mary.
Mary Lewis Awarded Congressional Gold Medal in Santa Barbara on Memorial Day
@Daniel Kozub
“How will we know if any or all of the climate models are accurate at predicting the future?”
This is actually a pretty interesting question. In short: It’s doubtful the models will ever be robust enough to make meaningful predictions about the transient response. The models do a little better in predicting trends, but that’s not unexpected since the trend averages out alot of the error.
Now turns out, making a model that takes into account known forcings and that produces an earthlike earth over a backcast of a couple tens of thousands of years (Without arbitrary fluxes of heat; Not done in today’s GCM’s) is tough. No one has been able to do so that ignores CO2 as a significant driver of climate.
Higher res (same picture)
http://assets.mediaspanonline.com/prod/4552112/Lewis-4_w500.jpg
From article:
http://www.thedailysound.com/060110waspmedal
These are the kind of representatives of my parents’ generation that make me truly proud to be an American. They have my deepest admiration and my profound apology that my generation has failed to follow in their extraordinary footsteps.
Re: Oakden Wolf @ October 8, 2010 at 10:00 pm
You’ve missed the point.
Hal Lewis’s fundamental disagreement with the APS is with the following “incontravertible” parts of the APS statement. He, along with a group of his colleagues, don’t believe the statements are supported by physical science and therefore are not worthy of support by the APS. I will identfy them for your benefit but it’s not why he resigned.
1. “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. ”
Not incontravertible.
2. “If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
Not incontravertible.
3. “…and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”
Not incontravertible.
4. ““Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.”
Not incontravertible.
The APS Energy policy is not why he resigned either. You have brought out a red herring by asking what is wrong with the APS Energy policy, highlighting the bit on nuclear power. Hal didn’t say, but yeah, he probably doesn’t have an issue with that – as probably the majority of WUWT readers.
Hal’s resignation stemmed from the lack of recognition by the APS of the shenanigans of the climate science community as evidenced by “ClimateGate”. He says it several ways throughout the numbered “theses” in his letter.
He resigned in the end, however, over the complete dismissal, in fact deliberate undermining, of due process under the Constitution of the APS to talk about these concerns.
Anthony’s comparison to the 95 theses is about that – Martin Luther really just wanted to talk….
Now I’m struggling with whether or not I will also be resigning from the APS and the ACS. It’s a tough call.
REPLY: Deeds speak even louder. – Anthony
“Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics” is the line that jumped out at me. The key word is Emerotus, i.e. Retired. It is us old guys with retirement income and no allusions of future granduer that are in a safe position to break from the bad science of man-made climate armaddegon. There are a few, very few, young scientists who have spoken out and have suffered the professional consequences. They are my heros and I suspect Harold Lewis would agree they, most of all deserve our support as we battle to bring climate science back to middle ground.
T. Goodwin: “The core of AGW science is a bunch of computer nerds who know no science, have produced none, yet have managed to convince government agencies that they should be funded.”
You’re being a bit unfair to computer nerds.
At least they typically know how to write proper documented design-patterns-based tested code.
The code used to make these climate claims was hacked together by absolute amateurs.
Who also made up their own so-called statistical analysis as they went along.
I allowed my membership in the APS to lapse a number of years ago as frankly few would care if I had resigned. 😉
Unfortunately, even the resignation of someone of the stature of Prof. Lewis will be buried in the dead of night by the APS powers that be [the old man’s lost it, etc.]. Far too much govt funding is at stake.
My own reasons were several: the IEEE is now far more relevant to my work, the APS jumping on the global warming bandwagon, the disdain for applied – industrial physics, and esp the constant barrage of newsletters about politically correct social engineering that had absolutely nothing to do with physics.
There are 48,000 members of APS. The flood of responses from members who received Hal Lewis’ letter to them regarding the AGW official position statement of the society was 2:1 in favor of the position statement.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201001/letters.cfm
Worth reading a few of the letters in the link above.
At any rate, if the 2:1 estimate was honest and is representative of the whole body then approximately 16,000 members of the American Physical Society object to the society’s CAGW position.
I’m hesistant to bring numbers of people into this. In science it only takes one investigator who happens to be right. When consensus enters discussions of science one may then rest assured that science, like Elvis, left the building prior to that point.
wsbriggs says:
October 9, 2010 at 8:02 am
“Cliff, the concept of falsifiability is that measured data which contradicts the original hypothesis nullifies it, i.e. when the earth’s climate failed to behave as the hypothesis predicted – (think cooler despite a continuing increase in CO2) – the AGW hypothesis was blown. ”
wsbriggs,
You described falsifying, not falsifiability. The concept of falsifiability is that a hypothesis is not valid unless it can be tested. An untestable hypothesis (idea) is called a “concept”. A theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested to falsify it.
What will prevail in the end, and after how much sorrow?
Here’s more background for Hal Lewis’s resignation [my boldface]:
The scientist who will head the American Physical Society’s review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton’s Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible “catastrophic consequences” of climate change.
Socolow’s research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government. In an interview published by Princeton’s public relations office, Socolow called CO2 a “climate problem” that governments need to address.
[ snip ]
Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara who has been an APS member for 65 years, says that he asked both the current and incoming APS presidents to require that Socolow recuse himself from a review of this subject, and both refused.
That means the review will be “chaired by a guy who is hip deep in conflicts of interest, running a million-dollar program that is utterly dependent on global warming funding,” Lewis says. In addition, he points out that the group charged with taking a second look at the 2007 statement, the Panel on Public Affairs, is the same body that drafted it in the first place. That, “too has a smell of people investigating themselves,” Lewis says.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5964504-504383.html
An example that speaks volumes. No wonder Hal Lewis felt compelled to resign.
Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 9:37 am
Sorry, Daniel, I should have typed “e.g” – my bad. But hey, with that change the statement is exactly what you described, and totally true. Now, back to the subject of climate, just what hypotheses do you believe vis-a-vis CAGW are still remotely valid?
“wsbriggs says:
Sorry, Daniel, I should have typed “e.g” – my bad. But hey, with that change the statement is exactly what you described, and totally true. Now, back to the subject of climate, just what hypotheses do you believe vis-a-vis CAGW are still remotely valid?”
No worries. And thank you.
Here we go:
The sun emits broad-spectrum radiation that heats the surface of the earth.
A large portion of that energy can be reflected away from earth based on the reflectivity of the surface of the earth at specific wavelengths or accross a broad spectrum.
The earth emits radiation in a more-narrow spectrum, and that energy escapes the planet unless it is absorbed by other matter.
Water (gas, liquid, or solid), carbon dioxide, and other trace gasses can absorb a portion of the energy that the earth emits.
Water is the most abundant and variable “greenhouse” gas, and it has the largest range of absorbance wavelengths.
Humans have the capability to alter the earth’s climate and weather.
Humans have altered the earth’s climate and weather.
Human activity can change the reflectivity of the earth’s surface.
Human activity produces water, carbon dioxide, and other trace gasses.
All of the above are testable and falsifiable.
Someone reading the above could call me a True Believer.
Someone reading the above could call me a Denier.
I’m just a scientist.
JeffT says “Hal Lewis misused the APS address list when he sent unsolicited e-mail to thousands of APS members, including me”
——————————————-
Imagine the nerve of a member of an organization trying to talk to another member! What kind of heresy is this!? What can be done about this outrage!? sarc/off
Makes me glad sometimes that I work in the forest away from self-important and petty tyrants.
well done Hal Lewis!
I did not read through the 200+ previous posts, but hope I’m not the first to note that Hal’s resignation says more about those who will stay on, skeptics included, in an organization with no purpose other than wielding ever stronger influence, power, and financial gain at ANY cost. I always go back to the statement of our founders who swore an oath based upon, “our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor”. In that day the oath was unanimous and all stood firm.
Hal has clearly been betrayed by those who failed to stand with him; we have all been betrayed.
Starwatcher says:
October 9, 2010 at 8:54 am
“@Daniel Kozub
“How will we know if any or all of the climate models are accurate at predicting the future?”
This is actually a pretty interesting question. In short: It’s doubtful the models will ever be robust enough to make meaningful predictions about the transient response. The models do a little better in predicting trends, but that’s not unexpected since the trend averages out alot of the error.
Now turns out, making a model that takes into account known forcings and that produces an earthlike earth over a backcast of a couple tens of thousands of years (Without arbitrary fluxes of heat; Not done in today’s GCM’s) is tough. No one has been able to do so that ignores CO2 as a significant driver of climate.”
I agree. But what about in the short-term? How much time is needed to evaluate them? Let’s say that a model appears inaccurate after 10 years when it is attempting to predict 100 years in the future. It is replaced by a new model that can’t be evaluated for another 10 years, etc…
It’s just curve-fitting.
I read some of the Climategate releases with horror, as the level of fraud and deception became clear. The horror changed to amusement as I realized the jig was up, and the fraud would now be public and undeniable. The amusement devolved to horror again, as I observed news organizations, pseudoscientists, and politicians the wold over ignore the truth of Climategate, and absolve the participants of any wrongdoing.
We live in dark times. The corruption of science, the rise of pseudoscience, and the rapid growth of intolerant, warrior religions threatens to plunge us from dark times into another Dark Age.
In such times, an occasional bright light shows through. Dr. Lewis has my undying respect.
Very disturbing, I’ve repeatedly placed comments to various articles on the LA Times site presenting opposing yet informative views and all have been rejected by their moderators. Is the LA Times so slanted its afraid to print an opposing view?
NY Times picked up the comments what’s up with “journalism” at the LA Times?
Folks, why not CC the petition mail to WaPo’s Ombudsman?
Ombudsman
The Post’s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, is the readers’ representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.
Sorry couldn’t face the Mann Op-Ed.
The interview I saw in the BBC propaganda piece, Climate wars was enough of that Mann for me.
He came across like a wheedling whining little schoolboy crying to mummy.
He was effectively saying, “I’m a scientist, why does everyone want to check what I’m saying? I mean, all my pals had a look and they agree with me.”
Sorry Michael, everything I’ve done I’ve tried to get someone who doesn’t agree with me to check, someone who’s had nothing to do with the work. If there’s something wrong and they find it, I thank them, take it away & try again.
I have this little conscience thing that tells me I don’t want to kill people with my mistakes. If I never get it right then the World’s a better place without it.
DaveE.
Colonel Sun says:
October 9, 2010 at 9:17 am
“You’re being a bit unfair to computer nerds.
At least they typically know how to write proper documented design-patterns-based tested code.”
The code used to make these climate claims was hacked together by absolute amateurs.
I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone brought up NASA GISS Model E! LOL!!
Former_Forecaster October 9, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Thats says it all, really. Hal Lewis’s API resignation letter must reflect hundreds of other unpublicised and unsung resignations from numerous scientific societies for the same reason.
to dbleader61:
The only statement that is prefaced by “incontrovertible” is that global warming is occurring. Everything else is not addressed by that word, even though the opening paragraph has a strong tone of certainty.
If you run an advanced google search for the past 24 hours you’ll find pages of links including the Canada Free Press and some in France. I haven’t seen any from major broadcast news but keep in mind its the weekend crew.
Has anyone sent the story to CNN yet?
I’m a lay person; Professor Lewis’ letter seems to me to be written by a brave and principled man and we could do with a lot more of those attributes in all professions and our daily lives; I’ve circulated the letter as widely as I can in Australia and hopefully he will get a lot of support from down under; I notice that Jo Nova’s blog and the Climate Conversation Group have featured this
John Coleman is quoted as stating:
” “Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics” is the line that jumped out at me. The key word is Emerotus, i.e. Retired. It is us old guys with retirement income and no allusions of future granduer that are in a safe position to break from the bad science of man-made climate armaddegon.”
The quotes below are relevant to the statement above. The first is attributed to “RW Harvey”.
“…I would recommend a (re)reading of Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn coined the phrase “paradigm shift” and this work gives an excellent exposure of just how difficult it is to embrace new theories; the standard approach is to toss anomalies and go full-speed ahead. According to Kuhn, it either takes the old scientists dying off, or the pile up of enough anomalies for new theories to even get a look. There is plenty of psychology in his exposure — egos, fear, material well-being, etc. — so the point is this is not only about scientists in the laboratory, but it is about anyone/group that is applying a theory to some part of reality… in the same phenomenon in the case of revolutionaries.”
And this is from “Bryan Feir” in a different discussion:
“Do you have any idea how many years it took for ideas like Continental Drift to be accepted by mainstream science? How many decades ‘standard’ ideas like Clovis First (the idea that all the American Indians crossed the Bering Strait 11 000 years ago) lasted despite evidence that they were wrong simply because too many people were emotionally attached to the idea to give it up? (Parts of South America were inhabited more than a thousand years before Clovis First says they could have been.) How much damage was done to effective research in Quantum Mechanics because Einstein himself couldn’t abide by the random factors in the theory he helped lay the foundations for?
It’s often said that any real progress in science takes at least a generation; long enough for all the old scientists who are attached to the old ideas to get replaced. Trust me, we’ve seen lots of evidence for that in this century alone. ”
“Emeritus” doesn’t necessarily imply an absence of fear.
a link to this article and the Professor’s letter has now been placed on Quadrant Online’s Doomed Planet http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/scientist-says-no
Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 10:50 am
Actually the width of the spectrums are the same. They’re both continuous gray body spectrums with the sun’s peak at about 5000K and the earth at 288K.
It also absorbs a portion of incoming solar energy. The key difference is that most of the sun’s energy is in the visible spectrum whereas that of the earth is in the infrared spectrum. GHGs are largely transparent to visible light but are opaque in the infrared. Water (liquid) absorbs visible light very well and given the surface is 70% covered with it and a good fraction of the sky is obscured at any one time by clouds (composed of liquid water droplets) it is important to know that.
Water vapor.
Yes, but so do butterflies. See Butterfly Effect. The central question is whether the effect is quantifiable, predictable, and significant.
Locally, almost without a doubt. Globally is a different proposition with far less confidence.
In principle, perhaps. In practice, not.
That is a problem. I’m an engineer. Scientists are experts at figuring out what we don’t know. Engineers are experts at figuring out what we do know. You got a lot of stuff that we do know wrong.
Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 10:50 am
The earth emits radiation in a more-narrow spectrum, and that energy escapes the planet unless it is absorbed by other matter.
I forgot to correct one glaring mistake. All the energy escapes the planet. If it didn’t the planet would vaporize from the accumulated energy and violate all kinds of thermodynamic laws in the process. Outgoing energy equals incoming energy. Write that down.
Anthony, rather that trying to get the editors of the Washington Post to print the Lewis letter, why don’t we just take up a collection to buy a full-page ad in the Post and print the letter that way? I, for one, would be willing to contribute. Find out how much it would cost, let us know, and then take pledges until we have enough to cover it.
Toby; great idea but rather than take pledges why not donations specifically for that?
Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 9:37 am
More apt is to call them narratives or a “just-so stories”. These abound in forensic sciences. When just-so stories become widely accepted they take on the patina of fact. When that happens in the halls of science, where narrative becomes widely accepted as fact, then science has left the building and dogma has taken its place. Dogma dies hard. There’s some truth in the saying that science progresses one funeral at a time. But just because something is dogma that doesn’t make it false. So in the case of dogma that happens to be true we can also say that science sometimes regresses one funeral at a time. The latter seems to be the case here.
@desmong
‘when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?’
Are you so naive that you can’t read the statistics for what they were?
Only 1/3 of the populace asked answered one or two of the two questions asked. That in and of itself spells terrible statistics.
Only 82% answered that they believed that man was somewhat responsible for the global warming problem, which means no more an 82% of the total 1/3 of slightly above 10 000 can be accounted for. Of those 82% there was an amount of active climatologists that amounted to one hundred percent and of those 97% agreed, if not in details so at least in the abstract the only two questions asked for the toll. Now, how many active climatologist were there amongst those 82% of one third of the slightly more an 10 000 asked, I ask? Do you how many of the “simpleton” earth scientists that also qualified as full blown active climatologists? Understand that if it only was 100, then only 97 people agreed, right? How many active climate scientist existed in the world at the time of the poll? Did you even know the poll only was for US and Canada? Does US and Canada represent the whole world? If so since when I would ask?
Now what does 97% mean for your crap ass authority figure. <–Get it?
'Of course, I will never find out because'
You're too indoctrinated to fully grasp reality better?
Send in tips on the resignation to The Drudge Report.
http://drudgereport.com/
The form to submit news tips is in the bottom right corner. Everyone in the mainstream media (MSM) reads the Drudge Report along with many millions of individuals. Some cynics even say the MSM has become so lazy they’ve taken to getting their news from the Drudge Report and abandoned any semblance of real investigative reporting.
Dave Springer says:
October 9, 2010 at 3:11 pm
” Outgoing energy equals incoming energy. ”
That’s only approximately so, and even then only over a considerable period of time. On average outgoing energy is appreciably greater than incoming energy (the Earth is gradually cooling, and there is additional heat from radioactive decay, nuclear fission, tidal friction, etc.).
Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 10:50 am
“[…]The earth emits radiation in a more-narrow spectrum, and that energy escapes the planet unless it is absorbed by other matter.[…]”
Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
which states that emission and absorption in heated objects are equal in local thermal equilibrium. So the matter that absorbs the radiation must also re-emit it.
This well-credentialed scientist is obviously sincere and genuinely outraged by what he perceives as a scientific ‘scam’. His resignation is from the APS is honourable in this light. However, none of these virtues, by themselves or together, automatically mean that his probity is keen on the matter of the science. Indeed, he focuses on the politics. I agree with him on the former APS statement, but not much else.
@Paul Birch
“” Outgoing energy equals incoming energy. ”
That’s only approximately so”
Yes but over longer periods of time it is an approximation accurate to at least four decimal points. Outoing heat from the earth’s formation and radioactive decay are a few milliwatts per square meter whereas total outgoing energy is in the hundreds of watts – several orders of magnitude difference there. For climate analysis purposes heat of formation and radioactive decay are rightly ignored in primary effect. In the secondary effect (volcanic activity) however they can have some dramatic short term climate effects that are essentially ignored because predicting volcanic eruptions is (in the kindest possible terms) not an exact science.
The APS has as of 2010 almost 50,000 members.
Hal Lewis has together with some others constantly tried to influence the APS stance on global warming. He managed 160 signatures that demanded a watering down of the APS stance on Global Warming. So I would think that is about 3.2 per-mill of the APS membership. Storm in a tea cup I would say and the APS will do well without Hal. The PR of this is well overblown.
For those who would like to know what the APS is about I recommend their website, not what bloggers like micro-watts have to say about them. http://www.aps.org
I have been member of many clubs. You always find cranks and the noise that one crank in the middle of thousand others can make is always disproportionate.
Enough said.
Samoth says:
October 9, 2010 at 8:16 pm
The APS has as of 2010 almost 50,000 members.
……
I have been member of many clubs. You always find cranks and the noise that one crank in the middle of thousand others can make is always disproportionate.
Enough said.
Well, the responses were running two to one, according to the APS link some posts above yours, and 1/3 of 50.000 is a lot of cranks for one society.
In societies you find some cranks, and a lot of honest people, and a good number pushing their self interest, in this case jobs in the global warming band wagon. I wonder to what sub sample you belong. Can you swear, cross your heart and hope to die, you are not feeding from the AGW trough?
dbleader61;
Good post. But I twitched every time I had to read “incontravertible”. Since the actual word is “incontrovertible”.
Indeed. They are jackasses of all trades, masters of none. They rigidly exclude input from those who know better. Self-promotion has carried them to the heights, but is now about to fail in confrontation with actual scientists, programmers, statisticians, modelers, forecasters, and physicists.
The above implies that the mainstream membership has well-considered opinions on the subject. Only that would justify dismissal of Lewis as a crank.
But what if they have ill-considered opinions, and their consent has been manufactured?
How about a test? Pick a convenient location and have a dozen random nearby members attend a dozen weekend presentations and debates between members of Lewis’s dissenting contingent and the CAWG-consensus authors of the APS position statement. Then poll those jurors on their opinions on that position statement.
And how about a bet on what those poll numbers would look like? (I bet that strong support for the APS statement would drop in half, and strong support for the Lewis position would double, compared to pre-debate sentiment.)
“Samoth says” he “tried to influence the APS stance on global warming” and he’s a “crank”, yeah, like that crank Galileo tried to influence the concensus positon on whether the sun went around the earth or the other way around, we wouldn’t want to upset the consensus, now would we? Apperently you don’t understand science at all, if we stuck with the consensus we would still be living in caves.
Second, “crank” and “micro-watts” are just name calling, is that scientific? It can also be described as “poisoning the well”, an illogic argument that attempts to say “you shouldn’t listen to them, they’re eeeevil”. Illogic is really just a fancy word for lying.
Finally, going to the APS website and seeing what they stand for is irrelivent, since they have, in violation of their own constitution, denied a petition, with the requisite number of signatures, to form “a Topical Group on Climate Science”. As such, it is no longer even remotly relevent what they SAY they stand for, since the main document about that, their constitution, is simply being denied. Who cares what they say anymore after that? How to tell if the leadership of the APS is lying, their lips move.
Given, that, the only thing that should happen to the APS now is:
1. It should be destroyed.
2. It should be replaced by an organization that actually DOES do what they SAY they stand for.
And if 1/3 of their membership now disagrees with their position, and the leadership no longer follows it’s own constitution, then that 1/3 should leave en mass, and form a new organization to DO what the old one no longer DOES.
The members are not even consulted. The blatherings of the executive admin types is taken as the opinion of the whole group, and it is no such thing.
So if global warming is some huge fraud, why are the polar ice caps, which have been around for hundreds of years melting? Don’t talk to me about hockey stick graphs and email consipracies. Why are they melting? I heard it’s 3 years in a row now that the shipping route through the North of Canada has been passable. Think they will have iced back over in a few years?
WE ARE ALL RENEGADES NOW!
SEIZE THE TIME!
Extend the struggle against the Carbon Con everywhere.
Beware of new ‘Hockey-Sticks’!
Harold Lewis,
THANK YOU! WELL DONE! YOUR STATEMENT IS BRILLIANT.
ClimateRealists and honest scientists everywhere should circulate and applaud what you have done. You will now doubtless be vilified and we must all defend you and NOW seize the time to advance what you have said!
Hundreds of battles like you have fought are being fought against the imposition of stupid & costly ‘Green/Climate Change’ policies, projects, taxes and brainwashing in many and various community, workplace, professional and scientific operations around the world. These battles in bodies and professions range from Town Planning and Banking to Schools and residents groups; and in professional organisations and University departments from Physics and Chemistry to all forms of Engineering and Science. They don’t get reported much but your upstanding will give them support and renewed encouragement. We should report on and assist the side of integrity in these struggles.
We must now SEIZE THE TIME until the cancer of CO2 Climate Fraud is lanced forever!
The CO2 scam and all policies which follow from it must be scrapped.
It may be that some in the Global Warming gravy train can see the game is up which could be why Professor of Climate Change Mike Hulme was so weak in his defence of the ideology of his own provenance when speaking in Cambridge on Oct 8th – see
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6435 or http://bit.ly/9NKupp
HOWEVER, the corrupt, dishonest and malevolent gravy train of the Carbon Con and Climate Change fraud will not be laughed away. It is now fighting a desperate rearguard action and we must beware because cornered rats are very vicious.
Their 5th and probably final apology and whitewash of climate fraud – by The UK Royal Society – has stalled {please see VIDEO http://bit.ly/9HueD5 } so now they are moving into a Custer’s last stand.
“Daddy, Did they use real children?”
The failed eco-fascist 10/10 SplatGate film {See VIDEO COMMENT http://bit.ly/ddA7Xv and discussion http://bit.ly/cOif35 } is but one example of their renewed viciousness. If any doubt the disgusting evil nature of this film I know of one example of an 8 year old asking his father “Daddy, Did they use real children?”
It is also clear the GW lobby won’t get far with total fraud games like ‘Ocean acidification’ and so are busy making up many new hockey sticks – mostly along the well-trodden fraudsters path of “It’s not a dog so it must be a cat!” centred around the highest most ‘respectable” institutions of academia and propaganda of our time.
The recent “new discoveries” of the well known facts about Solar activity and temperature presented in a shamefully deceitful manner** through studies emanating from Imperial College and reported by the Journal Nature and given totally one-sided coverage by the BBC are the shape of many more such things to come. Please see http://bit.ly/b1Bjge
Alongside this we have calls by the likes of pseudo-academic cancers such as The Grantham Institute of Climate Change to exclude Climate Realists (‘Sceptics’, ie evidence-based scientists) from the Royal Society. This is reminiscent of the treatment of science and scientists by Hitler and Stalin and should NOT be taken lightly. See COMMENTS under Pallab Ghosh BBC Report
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6383
Next we have the BBC’s minister of propaganda, Roger Harrabin, recent abseiling down holes in China to reveal ‘something unique about stalagmites’ in the last 50 or whatever years ‘which must be down to…. (oh please)’; but I suggest, more likelydown to the holding of a Climate Change summit in China this week.
{Of course, dear BBC and compliant beggars for research largesse, don’t consider:
Fact 1 Rivers being moved around by the regime running China in the last 50 years.
Fact 2 Various solar-lunar modulation patterns of Pacific and world circulation on time-scales of many decades and centuries**
Fact 3 Every period of 50 years or so has been unique and man was there for a lot of them but it doesn’t mean ‘Man’s CO2 done it’!…..etc etc etc}
In this struggle I am constantly amazed at every turn by the brazenness and depth of the sacrifice of evidence-based science at the alter of self-serving corruption of due, honest and fair democratic process.
I am even more staggered by the cretinous arrogance of the scientists and pseudo-scientists involved who appear to believe that their half-baked incomplete models of natural processes are more reliable than nature itself!
Never in the history of the world was so much arrogant falsity created by so few in order to deceive, control and exploit so many.
Support for Prof Harold Lewis and the state of the fight against the Carbon Con will be taken up at the CLIMATE FOOLS DAY EVENT in Parliament Weds Oct 27th 2pm – Please see http://bit.ly/d2NABV
Thanks, Piers
astrophysicist and long-range weather & climate forecaster of http://www.WeatherAction.com
** For further Comment on Sun-Earth work of IC Joanna Haigh see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
For WeatherAction FORECASTS please visit –
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact8&fsize=0
or foot of page http://bit.ly/9NKupp .
For Causes of Climate Change see red bold items in comments on Climate Realist thread “World Cooling has… ” -http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=5
and for Solar-lunar jet stream shift prediction (which is what the changes in China are all about) see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6165
M-F says:
October 9, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Oh dear. Where to start?
Piers Corbyn says:
October 9, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Good to see you here Sir! You mention the gravy train: Maybe that’s why Pachauri got the job. Him being a railroad engineer and all that…
Brian H says:
October 9, 2010 at 9:52 pm
dbleader61;
Good post. But I twitched every time I had to read “incontravertible”. Since the actual word is “incontrovertible”.
Remember Brian – to err is humane…
M-F says:
October 9, 2010 at 11:25 pm
So if global warming is some huge fraud, why are the polar ice caps, which have been around for hundreds of years melting? Don’t talk to me about hockey stick graphs and email consipracies. Why are they melting? I heard it’s 3 years in a row now that the shipping route through the North of Canada has been passable. Think they will have iced back over in a few years?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It already has iced over…. the multilayer, multiyear ice is expanding.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
—
Interesting. Worshipful warmist comments on *The Washington Post* Website bearing Dr. Mann’s “please, PLEASE don’t let the government prosecutors send me to federal prison as soon as the National Socialists lose control of the House of Representatives!” whimpers continue, all about as blessedly free of the ravages of intelligence as you’d expect.
Turns out that lots of folks had followed the link thereunto and reproduced, in whole and in part, Dr. Lewis’ letter of resignation from the American Physical Society in earlier comments, following those posts with robust and spirited defenses against the usual feeble “he’s not a climatologist, and not qualified to have an opinion!” irrelevancies.
The AGW True Believers (and I use the term in the Eric Hoffer sense) have made great noise over the past several decades about how we should “trust the experts” and the “qualifications” of their Hockey Team fraudsters, and now that more union-card-carrying and unimpeachably impartial academicians with irreproachable curricula vitae have had time enough to examine not only the raw contents of the FOIA2009.zip archive but also the considered analyses of men like Mr. Montford, the “authority” argument has gone against the “man-made climate change” campaign with a vengeance.
Has anybody yet tracked the response made by Dr. Callan to Dr. Lewis’ letter of resignation? Has Dr. Callan made any response?
—
I have submitted the professor’s resignation story to the Drudge Report. I hope Matt D’s people run with it.
I’m rather curious about some things brought up in the thread.
What qualifies and defines a scientist as a Climate Scientist?
How many Climate Scientists are there exactly?
I think that 100% of Climate Scientists should be in favor of climate change research. Are there really 3% of those who don’t agree?
How did we find out that those 97% agreed? Were unsolicited emails sent to them all asking their opinions?
Since when is it considered a “no no” to send an unsolicited e-mail regarding official business to a colleague within the same organization?
Does anyone else think it absurd that the APS would NOT want to open a scientific discussion group, given that the requirements to initiate same were clearly met per the APS’s constitution?
To past or current APS members here; are any of you Fellows of the APS?
Do any of the scientists here have the scientific and academic stature of Prof. Lewis?
Why would I not want to believe Prof. Lewis over, say, some newly-minted PhD?
Inquiring minds want to know!
I have just done a search on Google News for: “Hal Lewis APS resignation” without the quotes and the results so far speak for itself. Sad!
Google News search results
http://tinyurl.com/2uy4525
John Coleman rightly points out that the only scientists who can really afford to dissent openly on these matters are the retired ones, or those outside the academic grant-manger system. In some very rare cases, like Lindzen’s, they manage to do it while still in the system if their credentials and tenure are solid enough, though they pay a big price. For younger ones, it means instant career suicide.
This is a very depressing state of affairs. An army of bureaucrats having, with one hand, a firm grip on the checkbook, while with the other hand they hold an entire generation of scientists and researchers firmly by the balls. It is no wonder that, in this kind of situation, those who are being so shamefully held attempt by all means to convince themselves of the truth of these dogmas, to ease the shame. For most of them, it would be impossible to function otherwise.
You could say that the Red Button in that infamous video represents not a fantasy, but a crude reminder of a well established reality: show the least sign of a doubt, and we will detonate your career.
richard verney says (October 8, 2010 at 3:44 pm) says
“This raises the age old dilemna as to whether one is better to fight battles from within or to stand proud but on the sidelines.”
Lewis is an Emeritus Professor, so presumably outside the pitiful AGW tent pissing in. That’s good. Real good.
M-F wrote:
“So if global warming is some huge fraud, why are the polar ice caps, which have been around for hundreds of years melting?”
Hundreds of years? Yup, the arctic cap was small hundreds of years ago, and the northwest passage has been navigable before.
All you need to do is figure out why those occasions didn’t cause a panic, and why when carbon dioxide was much lower hundreds of years ago, the ice caps were smaller.
harry says (October 10, 2010 at 4:35 am)
“the arctic cap was small hundreds of years ago”
Indeed, “Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/High_CO2_levels_bring_prosperity_and_longer_life.htm
Jimbo says:
October 10, 2010 at 3:37 am
I have just done a search on Google News for: “Hal Lewis APS resignation” without the quotes and the results so far speak for itself. Sad!
Google News search results
http://tinyurl.com/2uy4525
=================
The News and the Blogs become completely separate universes when stories of this kind appear.
This is a search in the blogs. It’s all over the place. The blogs seem to be the only thing remotely ressembling a democratic press these days.
http://tinyurl.com/22nr6e7
Francisco says:
October 10, 2010 at 3:44 am [ … ]
Excellent post! Kudos.
Samoth: Hal Lewis was an APS Fellow, not just an ordinary member. The APS selects only 0.5% of its members per year for that honor.
Furthermore, he was trained by Oppenheimer, studied at UC Berkeley and the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, and chaired the elite JASON group of scientists who did semi-secret consulting for the US government.
Your notion that Lewis was just some nobody crank out of thousands of APS members is simply incorrect.
So that’s 47,946 members of the APS who have not resigned, then. Really, if Lewis has hard evidence of fraud he should present it, otherwise he should shut up. I for one, am getting a little fed up with this serious charge being thrown about with a conspicuous lack of supporting evidence.
Professor Emeritus Lewis is annoyed that the APS did not amend their position statement on climate change after ‘Climategate’, which he described as ‘fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity.’
However in his resignation letter, the professor provides no evidence to support his charge of fraud, which is of course an extremely grave one. If he has such evidence one has to wonder why he did not make a submission either to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee or the Muir Russell panel, both of which actively solicited such evidence from any interested parties.
The background is that Lewis and a handful of other senior physicists have been attempting to get the APS to endorse their viewpoint of corrupted science for some time, but their views have not gained any significant traction within the APS membership. He signed an open letter to Congress in mid-2009 stating that ‘the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help.’ http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3666
In late 2009 they circulated a letter to a selection of members stating that ‘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.’ The signatories were …
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
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
About the same time Lewis and others organised a petition of APS members to pursuade the Society to amend its position on climate change. He gained signatures from 160 members, or about one third of one percent of the membership. Maybe he has decided that his (tiny) minority position has become untenable?
REPLY: Phil, did you sign on to support 10:10?
…when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?
desmong: Specifically, 97% of “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change” agree that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” http://tinyurl.com/dehjun
It’s hardly surprising that almost all climatologists publishing on climate change believe in human contributions to climate change.
Furthermore, believing that humans provide a significant contribution to changing global temperatures is not that big a deal either. Heck, I agree and I wouldn’t be surprised if 75% or more of the participants on this blog agree.
Also, these publishing climatologists aren’t a conspiracy. They are part of a $2 billion/year climate research industry. They are a self-selected group who know where the bread is buttered. Most of their jobs didn’t exist until the climate change boom.
If anyone knows how to contact Mr. Lewis, please encourage him to send his letter to newspapers across the nation, under his own signature, with an intro as to who he is and why his opinion matters. Newspapers will not just up and publish this unless it is submitted in this way, in my opinion. Michael Mann wrote a letter and then sent it. Please follow suit, Mr. Lewis.
…when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?
desmong: Specifically, 97% of “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change” agree that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” http://tinyurl.com/dehjun
It’s hardly surprising that almost all climatologists publishing on climate change believe in human contributions to climate change.
Furthermore, believing that humans provide a significant contribution to changing global temperatures is not that big a deal either. FWIW I agree and I wouldn’t be surprised if 75% or more of the participants on this blog agree.
Also, these publishing climatologists aren’t a conspiracy. They are part of a $2 billion/year climate research industry. They are a self-selected group who know where their bread is buttered. Most of their jobs didn’t exist until the climate change boom.
One good thing has come from this scam, we now know just who can be bought, either with tax payers money or phoney rhetoric, Hal Lewis is indeed a great man, while it is true the decision to stand on his ethics was a little less painfull than younger scientists it takes nothing from him, it must have taken some deep soul searching to do the right thing, as for the simpletons who talk glibly about the melting ice caps and the open north west passage, I suggest the try some actual research outside the user edited wikpedia then admit their haste and gullibility (there are 100 year old scientific observations about water temps and ice extent, then how did the Nazi raider get through the NW passage in 39, not many Russian atomic powered ice breakers then were there?) from my printed history books when I was a teen I read about the Vikings being frozen out of farms on Greenland (where did that name come from) I read about the ice fairs on the Thames in London there is an etching showing one with a huge fire on the ice. All this is in print no digital cleansing can be applied, that is why opressive dictators used to burn books that opposed them, that is why both the EU and the present tyrant in the Whitehouse want to control the internet, and why the islamic countries banned Blackberries.
I trained as an engineer (electro-mechanical mainly) but somehow landed up owning a garage, I do understand basic physics and understand that no one actually knows much about cycles and other effects on ice extent in the poles, our accurate readings of extent and thickness are limited to a blink of the eye compared to their age but the pseudo experts claim death spirals. It will take a lot more of us to follow Hal’s lead and stand up to be counted before this scam is put to bed, however we now know who we can trust scientifically and politically, that’s a first.
When Hal Lewis speaks of the ‘money flood’, we ought to understand that there is only one way of flushing the foxes out of their holes. With money. Offer every member of the APS the equivalent of 5 years tax funded grants in hard cash and there just might be a more honest appraisal of the so called ‘incontravertible’ truth of global warming. Without this sort of incentive, there will never be, short of being brought to shame or criminal proceedings, any likelihood of those scientists abandoning the lovely gravy train they’re on.
Phil Clarke says:
October 10, 2010 at 5:57 am
About the same time Lewis and others organised a petition of APS members to pursuade the Society to amend its position on climate change. He gained signatures from 160 members, or about one third of one percent of the membership. Maybe he has decided that his (tiny) minority position has become untenable?
Come on, get real. It was 200+ members, not 160. Have you read the resignation letter?
“4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.”
Then go on reading the APS Constitution please.
“ARTICLE VIII – DIVISIONS, TOPICAL GROUPS, AND FORUMS
1. Organization. – If at least two hundred members wish to advance and diffuse the knowledge of a specific subject or subfield of physics, they may petition the Council to establish a Topical Group. The Council shall distribute to the Chairperson and the Secretary-Treasurer of each existing Division and Topical Group a statement of the areas of interest of the proposed Topical Group for review and comment. Following Council approval, the new Topical Group shall be officially initiated and considered active when at least 200 members have enrolled. [etc., etc.]“
The petition was handed to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society, but he failed to perform his duties as described by the Constitution, that is, seeking Council approval, instead he has declined to accept it and initiated a poll among members on who would sign an as yet non-existent counter-petition instead.
That’s a clearcut violation of Constitutional procedures. As soon as an Institution fails to follow its own Constitution, that Institution is doomed. It is as simple as that.
Phil Clarke says:
“So that’s 47,946 members of the APS who have not resigned, then.”
Since Phil implies that he knows the number of members who have resigned from the APS due to their global warming stance, why doesn’t he just tell us the number?
People join and leave organizations all the time. Thousands of new graduates become members every year, while others pass away or retire. Only a fool would claim that Hal Lewis is the only honorable physicist in the APS. My bet is that the total number who have resigned since the APS insiders drank the Kool Aid following Climategate is in the thousands. Only a few pals in the APS are privy to the real information. And who would ever trust anything claimed by the devious people running the APS?
[Well, I guess there’s Phil Clarke. Oh, and Joel Shore… Yoo-hoo, Jo-o-o-o-el!
Where a-a-a-re you-u-u-u??☺]
We get the same unacceptable answers from the backscratching insiders controlling the APS membership list that we get from people like Michael Mann, who refuses to disclose his methodologies: “Trust us.”
There is only ONE reason that the APS refuses to allow any but a few insiders access to its membership list: they intend to control the propaganda they emit, and different views will not be tolerated.
Clarke continues:
“About the same time Lewis and others organised a petition of APS members to pursuade the Society to amend its position on climate change. He gained signatures from 160 members, or about one third of one percent of the membership.”
Apparently Clarke didn’t even read the Lewis resignation letter. It was very difficult rounding up enough email addresses to get those signatures. No doubt many of them were already in Dr Lewis’s possession. To imply, as Clarke has, that Dr Lewis asked 48,946 members for support, and received the signatures of only “one third of one percent of the membership” is simply mendacious.
The fabricated numbers thrown around by the climate alarmist crowd are reminiscent of the old Supreme Soviet Politburo votes for one candidate — which generated only about ‘one third of one percent’ more votes than Mr Clarke’s numbers.
Maybe Phil Clarke could try to defend the APS policy of refusing to allow the means for its dues-paying members to contact one another, and defend the arbitrary decision by the APS pals to abide by their own written policy.
And we’re still waiting for an answer from Phil — did he sign up with 10:10?
Enquiring minds, etc.
DirkH says:
October 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm
“Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 10:50 am
“[…]The earth emits radiation in a more-narrow spectrum, and that energy escapes the planet unless it is absorbed by other matter.[…]”
Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
which states that emission and absorption in heated objects are equal in local thermal equilibrium. So the matter that absorbs the radiation must also re-emit it.”
Yes, in a closed system, with a black body, at thermal equillibrium.
Your first error is inferring that all radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the earth.
Your second error is inferring that I was only including thermal radiation.
Neither the sun nor the earth are black-bodies. But that isn’t an error in logic.
And the earth is far from being a closed system. Please research terrestrial energy sources, gravitation, gas laws, radioactive decay, relativity, and heat of formation.
It’s sad that reading wikipedia can make you more ignorant.
Dave Springer says:
October 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm
“Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 9:37 am
An untestable hypothesis (idea) is called a “concept”.
More apt is to call them narratives or a “just-so stories”. These abound in forensic sciences. When just-so stories become widely accepted they take on the patina of fact. When that happens in the halls of science, where narrative becomes widely accepted as fact, then science has left the building and dogma has taken its place. Dogma dies hard. There’s some truth in the saying that science progresses one funeral at a time. But just because something is dogma that doesn’t make it false. So in the case of dogma that happens to be true we can also say that science sometimes regresses one funeral at a time. The latter seems to be the case here.”
I would tend to agree with your definition. A concept is a necessary component of creating and refining a scientific hypothesis. Forensic science is a good example. But so is theoretical physics, lol.
“Cat knows where the ham is”. Never heard that before. Nice.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2000/october/loct00.html
Phil Clarke wrote: “So that’s 47,946 members of the APS who have not resigned, then. Really, if Lewis has hard evidence of fraud he should present it, otherwise he should shut up. I for one, am getting a little fed up with this serious charge being thrown about with a conspicuous lack of supporting evidence.
Professor Emeritus Lewis is annoyed that the APS did not amend their position statement on climate change after ‘Climategate’, which he described as ‘fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity.’
However in his resignation letter, the professor provides no evidence to support his charge of fraud, which is of course an extremely grave one. If he has such evidence one has to wonder why he did not make a submission either to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee or the Muir Russell panel, both of which actively solicited such evidence from any interested parties.
The background is that Lewis and a handful of other senior physicists have been attempting to get the APS to endorse their viewpoint of corrupted science for some time, but their views have not gained any significant traction within the APS membership. He signed an open letter to Congress in mid-2009 stating that ‘the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help.’ http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3666
In late 2009 they circulated a letter to a selection of members stating that ‘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.’ The signatories were …
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
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
About the same time Lewis and others organised a petition of APS members to pursuade the Society to amend its position on climate change. He gained signatures from 160 members, or about one third of one percent of the membership. Maybe he has decided that his (tiny) minority position has become untenable?”
Ah, the safety in numbers argument. While it works for schools of fish, it does not work for science.
Only a small percentage of the physicists in the APS are involved in so-called climate science and are informed about it only to the extent of what they may read in Physics Today and in the general press. Most are involved in other fields:
http://www.aps.org/membership/units/index.cfm
and with collegiality simply assume that their colleagues actually involved in climate research subject themselves to the same exacting standards of the scientific method as they do in their own unrelated work.
However, the people who brought forward this petition, such as
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton, have spent their distinguished careers studying the interactions between light and molecules, including CO2,
http://happerlab.princeton.edu/
and as such are qualified to call shenanigans on the claims of man-made global warming.
Daniel Kozub says:
October 10, 2010 at 11:17 am
First rule of holes, Daniel:
When you’ve dug yourself into one, stop digging.
The story has been picked up by one of Norway’s major newspapers, Dagbladet
– Global oppvarming – tidenes største svindel
http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/10/10/nyheter/global_oppvarming/forskning/utenriks/13777180/
The article is essentially a complete translation of Harold Lewis’ resignation letter to APS.
This is quite significant considering the complete domination of alarmist viewpoints in norwegian press in recent years.
You might see some traffic from a link at <a href="http://urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20V/OCTOBER%202010/10.WARMING.HTML" title="Urgent Agenda".
NPR
Top US Physicist Blows The Whistle 2 HOURS AGO
http://topics.npr.org/article/0bWDe8GfjcdmV?q=Princeton+University
Top Scientist slams corrupt AGW 2 HOURS AGO
http://topics.npr.org/article/05mS0J91xH0Nf?q=Princeton+University
SFGate
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/djsaunders/detail?entry_id=74246
Physicists with pitchforks
examiner.com San Diego
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-san-diego/hal-lewis-former-uc-santa-barbara-prof-resigns-from-aps-on-global-warming
Hal Lewis, former UC Santa Barbara prof, resigns from APS on global warming
French News Online Blog:
http://www.french-news-online.com/blog/?p=557
A Post Scriptum to an Eco-fascist blog
Well done.
Telegraph.co.uk
(link referenced on NPR)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’
The somewhat leftist main Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet published an article today about the American professor emeritus’ letter to the American Physical Society.
See http://www.dagbladet.no/a/13777180/
This is fantastic of two reasons: First, no Norwegian media writes anything about anything that could give reasons against AGW belief. Secondly, an accompanying poll with already over 10 000 votes showed that 57% don’t believe in AGW and 7% don’t care. This is not only 15-20% higher than previous polls, but the readers of Dagbladet in general are fed only AGW propaganda.
See http://stem.start.no/result.php?id=14492
To me it’s pretty simple, just as a judge who must be objective cannot be an advocate a scientist who must be skeptical cannot be an advocate. Advocacy on a scientific subject simply has no place in science. It is definitionally not science. APS is guilty of the advocacy of a particular point of view on climate science and so deserves the thrashing Professor Lewis has administered. Note, this doesn’t depend on what is being advocated, it’s the advocacy itself that is wrong.
Where do you draw the line between advocacy and argument? When words like ‘incontrovertible’ and phrases like ‘beyond question’ appear or there is an appeal to authority it is no longer argument and definitely not science.
Geir in Norway says on October 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm
While it is interesting that in a poll of 10,000 people in Norway 57% don’t believe in AGW, it has little bearing on the science.
My personal view is that human activities, including land use changes and the production of CO2 is likely to have had some impact, although it is likely small. However, I also think that liberating more CO2 from the earth’s clutches will likely have a beneficial effect on plant life … and is to be applauded.
However, the energy flows through the environment dwarf anything we are currently responsible for and that the thing to be feared is cooling.
Of course, the science is far from settled, and we need to get the funds into the hands of people who will do real research.
This whole episode reminds me of a chemist who would have been a contemporary of Dr. Lewis’ and while they might not have been direct acquaintances, they likely shared some of the same friends. His initials were F.T. and he passed away in 1976. He graduated from UCLA in 1932, served some time in WWII, and eventually went to work in industry while working on his grad studies.
He became so disgusted with what he saw as financial and political corruption that he completely quit the field of science, moved back to California and bought a garbage business that he eventually traded for an apple ranch which he worked until he died. One of the things that disgusted him was the “loyalty oath” that UC pressured many (and which Dr. Lewis refused) to sign but there were other considerations, many financial, that he discovered while working in veterinary pharmaceuticals.
This isn’t new, but it is different. It is yet another example of political and economic pressure being brought on scientists to arrive at the “correct” conclusion else they risk their jobs at the cost of their integrity.
It is the retirees who are most likely to blow the whistle because they are not in the funding game. Freeman Dyson is another such. Unfortunately they are easily ignored, but if the media takes note, then not so easily ignored.
I need to say, it is not only climate science which has gone askew. In astronomy, there is huge dollars funding the pursuit of “dark matter” and “dark energy” in support of a Big Bang & Inflation model which cannot stand except when supported by 90% unknowable matter & energy constructs. Common sense will one day prevail, if only the money spigots would dry up.
Dave Springer says:
October 9, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Daniel Kozub says:
October 9, 2010 at 10:50 am
[I snipped the bulk of my 10-9-2010 10:50 a.m. post and your response from 10-9-2010 3:06 p.m.]
I was referring to the earth and sun’s total electromagnetic radiation emission, not to their grey body thremal spectra.
Liquid and solid water in the atmosphere (rain, clouds, hail, snow) also absorb radiation from from the surface of the earth. I should have put “greenhouse gas” in quotes instead of “greenhouse” gas.
We could discuss the butterfly effect at length, and it’s likely that we hold the same opinions on it. So I will clarify my initial statement:
Humans have the capability to alter the earth’s climate and weather in quantifiable, predictable, and significant ways.
Please note that I consider the above statement, as well as all of the others in that post (with one exception, see below), testable and falsifiable concepts within the definition of science.
It is my OPINION that the earth’s hydrological cycle has been severely altered on the local and regional level. I would not refute someone that defined that as anthropogenic climate change. Urban rainfall flows into sewers, not creeks. Swamps are drained, resivoirs are created for dams. Dikes and levees are built. Crops are irrigated. Power plants spew water vapor. Land-use changes are too numerous to mention.
More OPINION:
You stated that you believe humans have altered climate and weather at the local level. Neither that opinion nor my opinion listed above claim that those changes lead to catastropic global warming. But the average of all local effects is the global effect. So the question is: Is that value not equal to zero?
My opinion is that the earth’s temperature is controlled by a severely-redundant negatively-coupled buffered system. And I think that there are two major stable states of that system, glaciated and non-glaciated. Global warming “theory” essentially states that either those systems are not stable or that there is a third stable state that I’ll call “fireball earth”.
I wish that I could plainly and accurately state that global warming is a farce. But instead I choose to say that I don’t believe in “catastophic carbon dioxide-based anthropogenic global warming”. It rolls right off the tongue. 🙁
[Quotation from our previous two posts]:
DK: I’m just a scientist.
DS: That is a problem. I’m an engineer. Scientists are experts at figuring out what we don’t know. Engineers are experts at figuring out what we do know. You got a lot of stuff that we do know wrong.
[End Quotation]
And that was the only statement in my previous post that was not scientific. In fact, it is wholly inaccurate. I’m not just a scientist, you’re not just an engineer. I wrote that as a declaration that what I was writing was as free of opinion and bias as much as possible for me.
Please tell me what I got wrong within the constraints of everything I said being “testable and falsibiable” scientific concepts. I wrote all of that post from the top of my head. I no doubt omitted concepts of which I am unaware, didn’t consider, or couldn’t remember.
As this debate further politicizes, arguements are becoming more political. Cognitive dissonance leads to rationalization and confirmation bias. Too many political arguments are supported by one side and rejected by the other. A year ago, supporting global warming did not mean that you are a Democrat, and rejecting it did not mean that you are a Republican (in the United States). Being an enviromentalist and scientist that does not believe CCAGW is an incontrovertible fact is probably about as difficult as being a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican.
And that brings this discussion back to the original posting about Hal Lewis’ letter.
Phil, did you sign on to support 10:10?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/friday-funny-2-2/#comment-503336
Thanks for pointing me to the signup page. FYI while the names appear immediately, the full sign up process involves responding to a confirmation email which presumably weeds out the more obviously bogus signers. Interesting that in one small country over just a few months they have gained more support than the absurd Oregon Petition managed in a decade. And I see that Mexico City has committed to its 10%…
http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/largest-city-americas-goes-1010
REPLY: You ducked the question and added irrelevant fluff. So I’ll ask again: did you signup for 10:10 as a supporter? Your name appears on it. – Anthony
Dave Springer says:
October 10, 2010 at 11:48 am
“First rule of holes, Daniel:
When you’ve dug yourself into one, stop digging.”
What are you talking about? You commentent on my post that I wrote to another commenter who asked me directly what parts of global warming orthodoxy were REMOTELY VALID. (wsbriggs October 9, 2010 at 9:57 am)
From our discussion:
DK: All of the above are testable and falsifiable.
DS: In principle, perhaps. In practice, not.
Which concepts that I listed are not testable and falsifiable?
Please stop insulting me with your false dichotomy. Continue to insult yourself with it if you please.
Anthony – click the first link – I answered the question on your very blog. Yes it was me.
BTW 10,000 people out on the streets of Paris supporting 10:10 right now!
REPLY: Thanks, it is truly sad to see that you support such idiots that make child snuff films – Anthony
1. Create the perception of crisis.
2. Proffer your own convenient, pre-determined solution.
3. Lobby your solution into law.
4. Profit by force at the expense of the masses.
5. Repeat.
It doesn’t take a scientist or a professional skeptic to understand the truth about the climate change context. As Hal Lewis aptly pointed out, it’s a HUGE FRAUD; as anybody, nevermind a scientist, should have figured this out years ago.
There is no defense for continuing to pursue the fraud of climate change. It is time to force those promoting the climate change fraud to disclose their vested political and financial interests. They have committed a terrible crime against humanity — among the greatest crimes in this age.
Line them up!
Congratulations Hal! Hope you are not the last to do such a courageous act!! We have been emotionally badgered for so long about this global warming/cooling scam that many do not want to hear the truth. I just found out that DDT is totally SAFE for humans and environment by going to http://www.3billionandcounting.com I then went to see the documentary and was shocked back to sanity! The folks that supported the lies around global warming are the same who banned DDT. I am encouraged that much of the deceit fed us over the last 40 years, is finally having light shed on them. Stand tall Hal .. there are many who are in your court!
Phil Clarke:
“BTW 10,000 people out on the streets of Paris supporting 10:10 right now!”
So that’s 2193817 parisians who are not on the streets then, Phil.
Not to mention exoplanets. I mean, we should all pretty much take it as a given that there are planets of all different sizes in all different kinds of orbits around stars. That we should find one or two million of them over time shouldn’t surprise anyone; it should be *assumed* they are there. I have no idea why so much money and publicity is being poured into the finding of them.
We should probably invest the money into something more worthwhile in astronomy like, I don’t know, searching for things in orbits perpendicular to the ecliptic, maybe? Imagine our chagrin in cataloging all the NEOs in the ecliptic only to get walloped by something flying in from due South. Say, how disruptive would it be to our solar system if something the size of Jupiter that was ejected from some star system comes sailing through on a parabolic path?
I would say it would be better to simply assume that we are going to find exoplanets pretty much everywhere we look and not to waste time looking for them until we have some use for the information. To me it is like looking for sand at the beach. Oh look! SAND! And more sand! And yet more sand! Basically a planet is just a very large grain of sand of which there are probably countless billions.
“Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.”
This says it all…
Interview with Harold Lewis (HT:Runi Sørensen)
by Finn Aaserud in Santa Barbara, CA
6 July 1986
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html
@Paul Deacon (way back):
“Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote”
Thanks for saying that, so I wouldn’t have to.
I’d add to that: “Reality is not decided by a majority vote”. Sadly, many people seem to lack that basic knowledge.
More and more serious publications are getting it right, eventually the politicians will as well – that is, if they haven’t bankrupted us all in the process first.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/leaders/6243478/science-fictions.thtml
Brian H says:
October 9, 2010 at 9:52 pm
dbleader61;
Good post. But I twitched every time I had to read “incontravertible”. Since the actual word is “incontrovertible”.
——————————————————–
Incontrovertibly so!
Aaargh.
Yer me and me brother Nemo have posted on our Blong site, right next to Miss Mermink October. It should be spotted.
For what it is worth, I am astonished that ordinary people, including well educated, continue to believe that the world is warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Even as they buy thermal sealants and listen to idiotic pronouncements about non-existent ice melts.
It is like the tech bubble.
Science has become … “science”!
huxley says:
October 10, 2010 at 6:13 am
Re: …when 97% of climate scientists support the research on climate change. Are 97% of climate scientists on an elaborate conspiracy?
“Specifically, 97% of “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change” …”
Please do not conflate “climate scientists” with “climatologists”. There are very few climatologists left (there were never very many of them). A “climate scientist” is not a scientist at all; he is a political propagandist paid to pretend to be a scientist.
“Also, these publishing climatologists [climate scientists] aren’t a conspiracy. They are part of a $2 billion/year climate research industry.”
That is a conspiracy. People cooperating in wrongfully robbing you, and lying about it.
Phil Clarke says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm
BTW 10,000 people out on the streets of Paris supporting 10:10 right now!
******************************************************************
Phil – 10,000 people is barely enough to stop the traffic, let alone to be classed as a decent demonstration. If that’s all that can be mustered, the AGW movement is surely doomed.
All the best.
Scientists may not see a connection, but in the nineteen eighties this same submission to Mammon saw the certain end of the banking industry looming. Many spoke out against it but none had the weight to stem the tide. We have paid the price, but, incredibly, nothing has been done to eradicate the abuse of principles that makes continued disasters inevitable.
As Erasmus might have said, “in the kingdom of the blind money-grubbers, the one eyed accountant is king”.
Were I Hal Lewis, I would ensure my car was well serviced for a while. Those Californian roads can be very dangerous places to drive.
And here in Australia the minority Labor government has set up a stacked committee to determine how to screw business and the public with a Carbon Tax or something akin on the basis of the “incontrovertible” evidence that man made CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet.
Australia produces about 1.5% of the world’s GHG emmissions so even if one accepts AGW the tax will do absolutely nothing to change the situation. This is blantant government thievery of the worst kind in order to reduce government deficits and debt and finance massive projects like the National Broadband Network which runs into tens of billions of dollars. The scammers will have a lot to answer for.
Strangely, this story has been ignored almost completely by every organ of the state and every news organisation and publishers, alike. The only mention anywhere outside of this blog is James Delingpole’s comment section in the Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
Considering the prominence given to every other climate-related scare story inflicted on us by governments and the mass media, this is a major case of collectively sticking their fingers in their ears and going “La, la, la, la, la, la, I’m not listening, la, la, la, la, la, we must be changing the climate because that is what I want to believe, la la la la la, not listening! I don’t know why you are talking because I am not listening, la, la, la, la, la, la, I can’t hear anything you’re saying, la, la, la, la”.
If anyone’s interested, the mass media (or should that be the mass hysteria industry) has moved on from the global warming story, of which they have become thoroughly bored, and are now promoting the next scare about how we are running out of fresh water. Yes, the world is “drying out,” apparently, though I must admit there are few contributions to this story from Pakistan, large parts of which seem to have spent the last three months underwater.
I’m interested in this idea of unsolicited emails undermining the validity of information. Does this mean that unless an email is solicited, no scientist should ever take heed of the information? Or is it only information that is against the standard dogma which is unsolicited? It’s an interested techno age version of heads in the sand.
“Hal Lewis misused the APS address list when he sent unsolicited e-mail to thousands of APS members, including me”
How can a Fellow of the APS, (not a mere member such as yourself) and a man who has been a member of the APS for some 67 years sending an email to fellow Fellows and members of the APS over a matter of APS policy to an APS list, which I assume that members have subscribed too, possibly be counted as misuse or sending unsolicited mail? If the list is a subscription list, then the act of your subscription to that list makes ALL emails from and to that list, which contain relevant APS business, become entirely solicited.
Therefore I cannot possibly understand how you can accuse Dr Lewis of “spamming”.
“This is blantant government thievery of the worst kind in order to reduce government deficits and debt and finance massive projects like the National Broadband Network which runs into tens of billions of dollars. ”
———————————–
Don’t forget the urgent need to appease the Green “junior” partner. Gillard, who demonstrably has no principles whatsoever, would do anything at all to retain power. This is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog but its hard to be amused when the whole of Australia will suffer as a result.
This story has broken in to the MSM here in Norway. A new poll show that that more than 50% now doubt the AGW theory. Only 20% doubted this only two years ago.
I have sent the following letter to the Washington Post:
There are many people who know about the resignation from the APS of Prof. Hal Lewis. They didn’t learn about it in a “leading” newspaper like the Washington Post – where they found instead a piece by Michael Mann. They know the connection between Prof. Lewis’ resignation and Prof. Mann.
Are the editors at the Post (and in fact at most newspapers) really naive enough to think that they can keep the public dis-informed indefinitely, in the age of the Internet and instantaneous information?
Prof. W. v. Witsch, University of Bonn, Germany.
M-F
You will find this an interesting look at the history of polar glaciation
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
WHY does Watts Up NOT PUT A LINK to this book on the website.!!!
“The Hockey Stick Illusion” – A W Montford (aka Bishop Hill blog)
After all, Montford is the author mentioned and it is THIS book, that Hal Lewis is refering to in his resignation letter…!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But no link to: ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ at Watts Up
Put a link to the book, underneath: Climategate – The Crutape Letter’s
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/11/hsi-hits-big-time.html
http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286797490&sr=8-1
There are many times I am glad to be a card carrying member of the over 50 club. This moment ranks at the top. Not to mention the fact that Mr. Lewis is an obvious advocate of nuclear energy. I have always held the position that if subs and ships can run on nuclear energy, so can cities and industrial complexes. We don’t need large facilities. We need strategically placed and utilized scaled down facilities.
Phil Clarke says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Anthony – click the first link – I answered the question on your very blog. Yes it was me.
BTW 10,000 people out on the streets of Paris supporting 10:10 right now!
REPLY: Thanks, it is truly sad to see that you support such idiots that make child snuff films – Anthony
——————
Well Phil…
Three LESS schools now in the UK supporting 10:10, my areas Infants, Junior and secondary thanks to this email.
Have a read of this email I sent to my childrens Infants and Junior Schools…
They promptly withdrew from 10:10 campaign and ALL future involvement and are considering the issue I raised about CAGW/Green organsations going into schools with ‘SAFE’ literature, with all the official ‘good stuff’ beyond all control online, youtube, forums, etc..
AGW right or wrong. Most teachers want – positive messages – not hate/bullying/ostracising/horror.
Anybody want to check if their childrens school is signed up, the link is below:
http://www.1010global.org/uk/education
From: Barry Woods
To: xxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:41 AM
Subject: Other campaigning videos, green peace, wwf, etc. “No Pressure video” – DO NOT WATCH IT WITH ANY CHILDREN AROUND
For the attention of Miss xxxxx
Thank you for cancelling the schools involvement with the 10:10 Campaign, following their ‘No Pressure’ video. (in the link)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/se…
As I discussed with you, what the campaigning organisations bring into school, is very different from what they put out ‘officially’ online..
There is a danger that parents and children consider these SAFE or appropriate websites, or youtube material, or internet blogs, BECAUSE these people have come into school..
The groups, heavily promote there material on all the new media, facebook, twitter,official youtube groups, etc, where advertsising standards DO NOT APPLY.
They are deliberately targeting the young…
In the Watts Up website article (towards the end) in the link below are some of the worst video ads.. From Greenpeace, 10:10, wwf (earth hour), government and other mainstream eco groups.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/07/if-you-ever-…
It ends with a particulary awful picture of a child in a noose, standing on a block of melting (artic) ice.
That was prominent at Cannes 2009 film festival, a partner of that groups includes the WWF
http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THE…
However, there are numerous other videos, whilst not as graphic, which are just as corrosive, in a slightly more subtle way. ie GreenPeace’s 4×4 add with an office worker… (spitting, ostracising, name calling, bullying, in an corporate office)
Finally the video from the Cop15 Copenhagen Opening Conference video, all over the media, BBC, Sky, ITV (especial the last bit of the clip)
The Cop15 Opening Copenhagen Conference video…
At the end, a small child running from a tidal wave (IPCC say 59cm in 90 YEARS) the child leaps into a tree, left dangling as the sea rushes underneath her, then she starts screaming.
This LIE gave my 5 year old daughter nightmares, she still asks about the child. She doesn’t understand why someone would make a video like that if it is not true..
So, I can see the doubt in her eyes when I say, it isn’t true.
They are deliberately targeting the young, a compilation of offical, (UN, UK government, 10:10, greenpeace) clips in this video
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/…
Do you ever meet with other Headteachers in the area, may I ask you to discuss this with them and to show them these videos, to demonstrate my concerns and the risks to children (probably more the older junior – secondary).
These are ALL offical mainstream ‘responsible’ groups or government sponsored/funded (imagine what the more extreme groups linked to the above are like!)
Whether or not anybody agrees or not with what they are promoting, this is NOT the issue, the concern is how they are doing it. It is all very negative with the threat of violence or acts of violence to animals and children. With an underlying message of bullying to conform with there views.
Nothing positive
I am very proud that my daughter was voted 1 of 2 members of her year to the schools eco-team, for all the real environmental reasons.
Best Regards
Barry Woods
Hal Lewis’ Resignation letter quote:
“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”
WHY doesnt WATTS UP – put a link to MONTFORD’s book at the TOP of this website then?
“The Hockey Stick Illusion” A W Montford
Put a link to the book, underneath: Climategate – The Crutape Letter’s
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/11/hsi-hits-big-time.html
http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286797490&sr=8-1
SORRY for the duplicate, ALL THE LINKS went wrong in the post above…
Please delete the first one….
—————————-
Phil Clarke says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Anthony – click the first link – I answered the question on your very blog. Yes it was me.
BTW 10,000 people out on the streets of Paris supporting 10:10 right now!
REPLY: Thanks, it is truly sad to see that you support such idiots that make child snuff films – Anthony
——————
Well Phil…
Three LESS schools now in the UK supporting 10:10, my areas Infants, Junior and secondary thanks to this email.
In the real world…
If anybody has children at school in the UK….
Have a read of this email I sent to my childrens Infanst School and Junior Schools…
They promptly withdrew from 10:10 campaign and ALL future involvementand are considering the issue I raised about Green organsations going into schools with ‘SAFE’ literature, with all the official ‘good stuff’ beyond all control online, youtube, forums, etc..
Send you own emailAGW right or wrong.. Most teachers want – positive message – not hate/horror.
[b]check if your school is signed up here.[/b]
http://www.1010global.org/uk/education
————————————————
From: Barry Woods
To: xxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:41 AM
Subject: Other campaigning videos, green peace, wwf, etc. “No Pressure video” – DO NOT WATCH IT WITH ANY CHILDREN AROUND
For the attention of Miss xxxxx
Thank you for cancelling the schools involvement with the 10:10 Campaign, following their ‘No Pressure’ video. (in the link)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
As I discussed with you, what the campaigning organisations bring into school, is very different from what they put out ‘officially’ online..
There is a danger that parents and children consider these SAFE or appropriate websites, or youtube material, or internet blogs, BECAUSE these people have come into school..
The groups, heavily promote there material on all the new media, facebook, twitter,official youtube groups, etc, where advertsising standards DO NOT APPLY.
They are deliberately targeting the young…
In the Watts Up website article (towards the end) in the link below are some of the worst video ads..
From Greenpeace, 10:10, wwf (earth hour), government and other mainstream eco groups.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/07/if-you-ever-needed-an-example-of-liberal-media-bias-in-the-usa-here-it-is/
It ends with a particulary awful picture of a child in a noose, standing on a block of melting (artic) ice.
That was prominent at Cannes 2009 film festival, a partner of that groups includes the WWF
http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THEEXPO2009.htm
However, there are numerous other videos, whilst not as graphic, which are just as corrosive, in a slightly more subtle way..
ie GreenPeace’s 4×4 add with an office worker… (spiting, ostracising, name calling, bullying, in an corporate office)
Finally the video from the Cop15 Copenhagen Opening Conference video, all over the media, BBC, Sky, ITV (especial the last bit of the clip)
The Cop15 Opening Copenhagen Conference video…
At the end, a small child running from a tidal wave (IPCC say 59cm in 90 YEARS) the child leaps into a tree, left dangling as the sea rushes underneath her, then she starts screaming..
This LIE gave my 5 year old daughter nightmares, she still asks about the child..
She doesn’t understand why someone would make a video like that if it is not true..
So, I can see the doubt in her eyes when I say, it isn’t true.
They are deliberately targeting the young, a compilation of offical, (UN, UK government, 10:10, greenpeace) clips in this video
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056892/pachauris-strategy-terrorize-the-children/
Do you ever meet with other Headteachers in the area, may I ask you to discuss this with them and to show them these videos, to demonstrate my concerns and the risks to children (probably more the older junior – secondary).
These are ALL offical mainstream ‘responsible’ groups or government sponsored/funded
(imagine what the more extreme groups linked to the above are like!)
Whether or not anybody agrees or not with what they are promoting, is NOT the issue,
the concern is how they are doing it. It is all very negative with the threat of violence or acts of violence to animals and children.. With an underlying message of bullying to conform with there views.
Nothing positive
I am very proud that my daughter was voted 1 of 2 members of her year to the schools eco-team, for all the real environmental reasons.
Best Regards
Barry Woods
I was attending the ASPO Peak Oil Conference last week in Washington, DC, and one of the presentations was by David Rutledge, a Caltech professor whose resume includes posts as Chair of the Caltech Division of Engineering and Applied Science and Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques.
David presented on hydrocarbon fuel sources of CO2 and implications for global warming. Basically, his calculations (which are largely consistent with my own) suggest that CO2 will peak at around 455 ppm in 2064 (if I recall correctly), and that, using the IPCC’s own temperature sensitivity estimates, about half of total expected global warming has already occurred. It was an excellent presentation.
I chatted with him after the presentation, and I dare say, he expressed many of the same concerns about the whole climate peer review process that Hal Lewis does above. Anthony, you might look him up and ask if he would like to write a post or two for WUWT.
The revolution will not be televised.
I read Dr Lewis’ letter and I see that he bases his claims of wide spread fraud in climate science on his reading of the climate gate emails and Montford’s summary of the same.
Unfortunatly his letter lacks specificity and it can not be determined upon which emails he is constructing his claims of fraud and its corollary, exotic island holidaying.
We are continually exhorted to resist arguments based on an uncritical appeal to authority. By this I understand that following the advice of your heart surgeon is probably a good thing when dealing with the heart but when dealing with your teeth you might measure his advice against that of a dentist, basically being an authority in one field doesn’t make your pronouncements authorititive in another.
So back to the unhappy Prof. He asserts that his reading of the emails convinces him a fraud has been perpetrated. He insinuates that Penn State and East Anglia have exonerated Mann et al because the weight of money has distorted process. And yet he offers nothing but fulmination with which to back his claims. That makes me very uncomfortable. I’m used to a higher threshold of evidence than Lewis seems capable of mustering.
The majority of responses so far to these unbacked assetions is that Prof Lewis should be applauded for his bravery when I think he should be given a refresher course in scientific methods…you know weighing the evidence, even that part of the evidence that discomforts your theory…being specific etc
The emails are undoubtedly controversial. One side insists that they are the nail in the coffin for AGW (without explaing how an allegedly flawed paleo reconstruction contradicts radiative physics or the anthropogenic contribution of co2 or the fact that co2 is a green house gas or the fact that co2 is increasing or the fact of decreasing arctic ice etcetera etcetera). The other side insists that the majority of the emails are nothing more than shorthand between researchers and that it would be foolish to read the emails in isolation from the scientific articles published in which that shorthand is given rigourous academic expression (the FOI emails are just wrong and I’m with Monbiot on this one, you don’t threaten to delete and you don’t delete just because you think somebody is a pain in the (tree) ring).
We can debate the emails until the cows retire for the evening and change into evening dress but the fact remains that a credible case can be made for a benign reading. This does not make the reading ‘true’ but its credibility is a hurdle for those who want to trumpet that the emails are incontrovertible evidence of wide spread scientific fraud. Particularly when the most ungenerous reading of the emails has been the motive behind Cuccinelli’s attempts to pursue Mann for fraud and that attempt has been rebuffed by the Court for lack of evidence. What are we to say to that…that the American courts are in on the conspiracy as well?
So maybe this story hasn’t got traction outside the blogoverse not because there is (for god’s sake lets grow up) a conspiracy but because a long retired academic simply hasn’t brought anything to the table other than the usual hyperbole that states climate science is wrong because all the scientists have been compromised by the promise of rewards from an as yet unrealised multi trillion dollar carbon market.
I’m sorry Anthony but to this sceptic any comparison of this letter to Luther’s unconventional use of the door knocker is just going a bit over the top.
When a scientific society issues a statement related to science it is implicit that some science was done to support the statement. It appears that the APS statement was supported by a vote of the membership. But how many of the members who voted actually performed scientific inquiry into the subject of the statement? I would guess that many of those who voted are devoting their scientific efforts toward String Theory or other esoteric subjects that have little connection with climate.
I would hope that the members of scientific societies would refrain from voting on policy statements unless they have done appropriate research or due diligence on the research of others they are depending on. Otherwise such votes are no more than an expression of the opinions of a group of highly educated novices. Perhaps that’s better than opinions of uneducated novices, but hardly a scientific product.
“BTW 10,000 people out on the streets of Paris supporting 10:10 right now!”
No doubt they’ve all seen the 10:10 commercial and are afraid of being “eliminated”…LOL!
By the way, Phil…here’s your “protest”…
Paris gets ready to party on 10:10:10
10:10 France organises a free concert for the Day Of Doing
—
Ah yes, doing what Climate Scientists do best – PARTY!!! (Except climate scientitsts do it in Cancun and Bali at taxpayer’s expense…)
There’s a solid chance this isn’t being covered in the media, because, with respect to Dr. Lewis, his resignation is not newsworthy.
He is a single man in his eighties, a retired professor and researcher who hasn’t published any meaningful research in his field, much less that of climate science, in what appears to be near 50 years, resigning from an organization that represents nearly 50,000 people. That his letter was public, inflammatory, and blogged heavily does not make it notable, much less Galilean.
That it is simply the latest volley in a lengthy campaign to portray a manufactured controversy makes it even less so.
And herein lies a real issue, the inability of current society to actually parse events to determine those actually worthy of widespread attention. This is not one of them.
Daniel Kozub says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm
re; first rule of holes
Here is where you kept digging:
“Yes, in a closed system, with a black body, at thermal equillibrium.”
In the earth’s energy budget practically all incoming energy comes from the sun. Less than 1% from tidal friction, heat of formation, and radioactive decay. For the purpose of the energy budget the earth/sun system comprises a closed system.
“Your first error is inferring that all radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the earth.”
The commenter made no such inference that I could determine.
“Your second error is inferring that I was only including thermal radiation.”
I did not see that either. The commenter gave you a link to Kirchoff’s law which applies to all heated objects. The sun and earth are both heated objects with characteristic black body emission spectra of approximately 5000K and 300K respectively.
“Neither the sun nor the earth are black-bodies. But that isn’t an error in logic.”
Astronomy 101 – the sun and earth both approximate black bodies in their emission spectra.
“And the earth is far from being a closed system. Please research terrestrial energy sources, gravitation, gas laws, radioactive decay, relativity, and heat of formation.”
In the earth’s energy budget less than 1% of the energy comes from the sources you cite. In that context the sun/earth is a closed system.
“It’s sad that reading wikipedia can make you more ignorant.”
Not as sad as the same effect via a PhD program. At least in the case of wikipedia there are no tuition payments adding insult to injury.
Marco,
The prof is writing a letter of resignation, not a scientific paper. He is resigning because of what he considers to be unconstitutional shenanigans, which he details in points 4, 5 and 6, not because someone disagrees with him. Had the APS followed its constitution, the prof makes it clear he would have been happy to deal with the science from within the APS.
R.S.Brown says:
“… The emails are undoubtedly controversial. One side insists that they are the nail in the coffin for AGW (without explaining how an allegedly flawed paleo reconstruction contradicts radiative physics or the anthropogenic contribution of co2 or the fact that co2 is a green house gas or the fact that co2 is increasing or the fact of decreasing arctic ice etcetera etcetera)… ”
Actually, the reverse is true. In spite of the billions spent, the global warming lot have failed to prove how carbon dioxide forces atmospheric temperatures upwards or downwards rather than those temperatures affecting the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as part of nothing more than natural climate cycles.
It is up on my site with the request to contact the Washington Post. This does deserve comparable (greater really) coverage than Mann gets.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/emeritus-professor-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/
John Kehr
Perhaps, to lighten things up, you folks would enjoy a listen of The Hockey Stick Blues…
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978577798
@Daniel Kozub
You ask which things are not falsifiable.
Pretty much all those which refer to anthropogenic driven climate change, either local or global.
How do you propose isolating the anthropogenic factor(s) in question? Absent a time machine we can’t go back in time and remove the anthropogenic contribution to see what happens. This is a problem with all forensic sciences. Climate change is not an experiment that can be repeated with one variable isolated for study. One might speculate on what would have happened if Adolf Hitler was never born. Such speculation is no more than narrative. Similarly we might speculate on what would have happened to atmospheric CO2 if the industrial revolution had never happened. That speculation would also be no more than narrative. The industrial revolution is not a repeatable experiment.
Anthony,
Maybe it’s just me, but I see an unfortunate ambiguity in the way you phrased the title of this story that can easily lead readers to think Hal Lewis himself has described his resignation as “an important moment in science history.” The word “My” makes it sound as if all the words after his name were his words. At least that’s the way I interpreted it on first reading.
There should be various ways to prevent this, for example
Hal Lewis’ Letter of Resignation…. etc.
The American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/brave_scientist_calls_out_the.html
October 11, 2010
Brave scientist calls out the global warming fraudsters
An interesting discussion with Desmong here showing the power of groupthink excess, if not a few decision makers but if millions are involved in it.
Could also be the battle between the guardians against the rationalists.
“Guardians often experience stress when rules, expectations, and structure are unclear, or when those around them do not act according to established procedures. The extraverted (expressive) types—Providers and Supervisors—may respond by becoming critical of others.”
But it’s great that ad hommers like Desmong get tit for tat. Refreshing.
Hopefully this letter will have a significant impact in the physics community given Hal Lewis stature. That he is a co-founder of the JASON government advisory group should add more impact. Unfortunately the JASONs were early adopters of the AGW pseudoscience as far back as 1982.
[quoted from Spaceballs]
Barf: I know we need the money, but . . .
Lone Starr: Listen! We’re not just doing this for money!
Barf: [Barf looks at him, raises his ears]
Lone Starr: We’re doing it for a SHIT LOAD of money!
What a pity.
300+ comments, and many with the usual ad hominem attacks, majority justifications, and blatant refusals to accept the obvious.
The AGW supporters will have to name for me the individual whose single-handed challenge to accepted orthodoxy was universally greeted with acclaim. The “incontrovertible” assertion makes clear the acceptance of AGW as orthodox.
Shall we look to Semmelweis? Or Copernicus? Shall we consider Heisenberg? Or Democritus?
Oh, sure. Any person setting things right is always welcomed with open arms. Not. Welcomed with derision, scorn, dismissal from employment, an occasional burning at the stake, a really warm welcome! Science is made by rebels, and only the test of time sorts out the true rebels from the charlatans.
Facts are unpleasant things, especially when facts contradict what you think is true. And the fact is that AGW theory does not present us with testable predictions. Documented history demonstrates that AGW predictions have not come to pass.
One can argue without limit about the absorption by carbon dioxide of infrared radiation which leaves the earth. Again the facts intervene. What, exactly, IS the carbon dioxide budget? How much is absorbed by plants, how much stored, how much released by plant death, and so on? How much is in the oceans, how much in fossil deposits, how much in living plants? How does this budget vary over geological time?
What is the cost/benefit ratio for reducing emissions? See the work of Bjorn Lomborg on this question.
Again, the facts. Anthony has been the point of the spear in questioning our method of data collection via Stephenson screens. The low ratio of screens which are sited in accordance with our own standards should give any scientist pause to reflect. An old rule is “garbage in, garbage out.” Or, “the probability of valid predictions based on inaccurate data is zero.”
The lack of a published explanation for the radical decrease of the number of stations used for computing the world temperature also gives those who care about accuracy a chill.
What I have not found in this thread is an explanation of the close connection between the AGW orthodoxy and the zeal of the Universal Utopian Socialists. Remember: the treaties which have been sought would bind the world into a universal socialist state. It is the same group which sought the same end under the flag of the Nuclear Winter not so many years ago.
It was pseudo-science then (Nuclear Winter); it is pseudo-science now (AGW).
But phony models which cannot predict cloud cover are no substitute for the hard work of accurate and methodical data collection!
Especially when the records are “amended” after-the-fact in order to buttress the pre-determined conclusion.
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 6:38 am
“@Daniel Kozub
You ask which things are not falsifiable.
Pretty much all those which refer to anthropogenic driven climate change, either local or global.
How do you propose isolating the anthropogenic factor(s) in question? Absent a time machine we can’t go back in time and remove the anthropogenic contribution to see what happens. This is a problem with all forensic sciences. Climate change is not an experiment that can be repeated with one variable isolated for study.”
Partly this is a matter of wording. The hypothesis that man is able to influence climate is probably not falsifiable; however, the hypothesis that man is unable to influence climate is falsifiable. It could be falsified by eg, scattering a large quantity of reflective chaff in orbit (or by any other drastic intervention sufficient to dominate the natural variations, or by an intervention we can switch on and off at will to isolate its signal – such as a soletta mirror). A scientific experiment capable of verifying or falsifying a hypothesis does not necessarily have to be repeatable, so long as the prediction of what will be observed is sufficiently robust and discriminatory. For example, if I predict that pushing you off a high cliff will kill you, I would be able to carry out the experiment exactly once – assuming that my theory is correct! – ’cause you’d be dead after the first run through. It would still constitute pretty good evidence, though.
Michael Searcy says:
October 11, 2010 at 6:14 am
There’s a solid chance this isn’t being covered in the media, because, with respect to Dr. Lewis, his resignation is not newsworthy.
Anything is possible, of course, but the most likely reason is that it doesn’t fit the MSM’s Alarmist stance (which sells papers) the way that, say, “The Hottest Summer Ever” does.
That it is simply the latest volley in a lengthy campaign to portray a manufactured controversy makes it even less so.
Heh. Nice try, but there is nothing “manufactured” except things like the Hockey Stick, and what you call a “campaign” is actually just an effort to bring science and truth back into climate science, which is obsessed with C02, or what they like to call “Carbon”, and adamant about their claim that it is man’s C02 which is either (take your pick) causing global warming, climate change, or climate disruption.
And herein lies a real issue, the inability of current society to actually parse events to determine those actually worthy of widespread attention. This is not one of them.
Yes, only a select few should be in control of the flow of information. That way, it’s much easier to
brainwashhelp the public to understand things.Unfortunately for the Alarmists (and fortunately for mankind), that isn’t quite the case.
Lewis is an “Emeritus”. . . in other words, there’s not a whole lot that can be done to him at this point, absent the inclusion of ninjas. So I don’t know if this is exactly brave, but it certainly was clearly very honest and more than a little painful for him.
But “brave” requires real risk, and Lewis has none. Alas, such bravery does not appear to be forthcoming from those who do still have careers to risk.
Phil Clarke says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm
“Anthony – click the first link – I answered the question on your very blog. Yes it was me.
BTW 10,000 people out on the streets of Paris supporting 10:10 right now!”
Yes, Phil. And Pol Pot got his crazy ideas while he studied at Sorbonne in Paris.
So the lesson is;
In any big city you will have a certain percentage that supports Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin or Mao, or whatever lunatic. Sad to see you are one of them.
“In astronomy, there is huge dollars funding the pursuit of “dark matter” and “dark energy”
It is a bit ironical that even Quantum Physics has its skeptic group which believes that physics has been a prisoner of the Copenhagen Interpretation clan. Like the skeptics here, their arguments sure seem more logical than the mainstream.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011221071928/www.gilder.com/AmericanSpectatorArticles/carver.htm
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/scattering.by.free.pdf
Who’s Hal Lewis?
Hah – not just the APS, but every scientific academy in the world? In every major developed country? As well as most of the major research institutes? Apparently another conspiracy theorist. This puts killing Kennedy and keeping it a secret to shame. Same for Bush and Cheney demolishing the towers. It’s up there with Roslin, NM and Area whatever it is. The scientific conspiracy to end all conspiracies – 200 years in the making. He’s mystified at the motivations, but his guess is that it’s all in the money. Even though the Heartland Inst has an open checkbook for any scientist, or person with even vague scientific credentials, ready to support their cause.
The mainstream media have failed to pick up on this issue for the simple reason that it’s not newsworthy. If Prof. Lewis were a central figure in climate science and had made an about-turn on previous support for AGW, that would be news.
But a retired physicist with no clear track record in climate science doesn’t count as news. The reason for this gatekeeping is obvious once you realise that every man and his dog has an opinion about global warming. They can’t all feature as spokespeople for media purposes, however, eminent they may be in other fields.
Lewis hasn’t helped his case by alluding to internal squabbles with APS, nor by his accusations of fraud, scam and corruption, much less the hints at conspircy.
A couple of years ago there was a flurry of excitement about a chap who claimed to have been James Hansen’s superior. I predict this issue will go the same way.
Because it`s so damned difficult to get the french communists out on the streets isn`t it?
Kate:
At your “Kate says: October 11, 2010 at 6:31 am”,
you seem to have confused me with someone else.
I was the one who at October 11, 2010 at 5:24 am,
used the lyrics quote , “The revolution will not be
televised.”
I forgot to give proper credit for the quote.
According to Wikipedia (shudder) Gil Scott-Heron
wrote the song in 1970 and showed it up as a track on
his 1970 album “Small Talk at 125th and Lenox. ” Gil
Scott-Heron recited the piece, accompanied only by
congas and bongo drums. This is the version with
which I am familiar.
It was later rerecorded with fuller instrumentation.
Oddly enough, at the time the tune first came out,
it only really got air play on underground FM stations…
which the song’s target audience tended to avoid.
It was never welcomed by mainsteam media.
I guess you had to be there
The book Lewis based his resignation on:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16053231/ref=pd_ts_b_nav
BFL says:
October 11, 2010 at 9:03 am
The latest alternative view:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
marco says:
October 11, 2010 at 5:26 am
I’m used to a higher threshold of evidence than Lewis seems capable of mustering.
Based on your rant, this seems highly doubtful. In fact, it would appear that it is you who could use a “refresher course in scientific methods…you know weighing the evidence, even that part of the evidence that discomforts your theory…being specific etc”. But, no pressure.
When an organization is in power, it is extremely difficult to present evidence of the organizations ‘wrong-doing’, no matter how solid that evidence is. The more power that is involved, either financial or political, the more resilient it is to claims of wrong-doing. The facts are there and they are obvious, but they just don’t seem to make any difference; not until some critical mass is reached.
Michael Mann’s WP article is pathetic. He states ‘facts’ that are unsupported by any evidence and, in some cases, easily refuted by existing evidence. The claims that hurricanes are getting stronger, for example, is an unabashed lie. Yet, he gets published in the Washington Post. Mann is on the side of the power, so what he says, no matter how stupid or untrue, gets treated like saintly testimony.
Thank you Anthony, for providing a way to combat the corrupted powers that be.
Professor Lewis wrote:
“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”.
This is standard procedure. About a year ago all actuaries in the UK were circulated with a proposal to merge the English and Scottish professions. Professor David Wilkie, a former Vice President of each of the two bodies, a former Vice President of the Royal Statistical Society and double Gold Medallist of both the English and Scottish professions, used the internet to circulate fellow actuaries explaining his opposition to the proposal.
The then President of the English body immediately launched a hostile investigation as to where Professor Wilkie got the e-mail addresses and reprimanded him publicly for his temerity in circulating fellow members directly. The irony is that until a couple of years ago all members names and addresses were printed in a year book (standard for most UK professions) but, when the printed version was replaced by the electronic, all addresses were quietly dropped unless a member specifically permitted his to be divulged and even then access to his or any other address by members of the public was removed.
Thus do totalitarian regimes operate.
The real big news will be the guilty verdict for the NZ climate manipulation as it seems rock solid.
how come that a TOP SCIENTIST like Dr Lewis doesn show up in this list of notorious American Physicists http://www.aip.org/history/acap/biographies/ …oh wait…
nah, it must be that malevolous nazi-comunist control AIP from moon dark side
REPLY: Given that I could not find a single photo other than the very dated one used in this AIP interview:
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html
I suspect that Dr. Lewis chooses not to be part of that biography section of the ACAP page. James Hansen, Richard Lindzen and even the world’s most famous physicist Steven Hawking are absent from that list, but William Happer is present. Surely they don’t force biographies on people if they don’t want one.
Your point is pointless.
-Anthony
DeepClimate.org had a front page post recently, and it looks you follow the steps with this post.
Noone is picking this story and everyone is talking about Scepticgate. George Mason University admitted today that they are full on with the investigation.
It might be better to front page something about the Wegman Report.
REPLY: you might learn to use the scroll bar of your browser on the front page of WUWT before making such suggestions – Anthony
Correction
R.S.Brown says:
… Sorry about that.
Meant to say
marco says:
Correction ends there.
Published it also!
Ecotretas
@anthony
I posted a very recent picture of Hal Lewis in the comments on this thread.
Dave Springer says:
October 9, 2010 at 8:58 am
Higher res (same picture)
http://assets.mediaspanonline.com/prod/4552112/Lewis-4_w500.jpg
From article:
http://www.thedailysound.com/060110waspmedal
These are the kind of representatives of my parents’ generation that make me truly proud to be an American. They have my deepest admiration and my profound apology that my generation has failed to follow in their extraordinary footsteps.
I’m not getting the import of this resignation, much less the religious import:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/10/11/take-a-deep-breath/
Now, what would be notable is if his colleagues at APS started doing the same, en masse.
REPLY: Time will tell. However, it may be a behind the scenes process since not everyone chooses the public path Dr. Lewis has. And, APS won’t even allow me to display their logo here (they wrote and said “take it down”) so I doubt they will make such resignations public. Keith, you don’t “get” much of anything we do here or on other similar blogs, so it is not expected that you’d get this. Enjoy your own opinions. – Anthony
@Paul Birch
“however, the hypothesis that man is unable to influence climate is falsifiable”
How’s that, Paul? We have one earth that we do something to and a control earth that we do nothing to?
Matt says: “Who’s Hal Lewis?”
I’m assuming that this is a serious question. He is the author of Technological Risk (available through Amazon). I picked up this book a few years ago, and found it a fascinating read. I would say, from my layman’s point-of-view, that if Hal Lewis is concerned about the veracity (or, for that matter, science) of any scientific claim, I would listen to him. He comes across rather professorial, but that is no surprise since he is a professor. Even though the philosophers like to think that they have cornered the market on logic and reason, it is scientists like Hal Lewis that really bring logic and reason to life.
“…and everyone is talking about Scepticgate.”
Really? Wow…uhhh…yeah….really….[yawn]….exciting….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@Paul Birch
“however, the hypothesis that man is unable to influence climate is falsifiable”
How’s that, Paul? We have one earth that we do something to and a control earth that we do nothing to?
In this instance Paul is correct. Man can influence the climate: UHI, desertification, irrigation, deforestation, excessive soot on the Poles, ….
The crux is the further hypothesis: whether CO2 , a trace gas, is important enough so that its increase would affect the global climate catastrophically.
Two different statements.
A further statement is : whether climate dynamics is known well enough to be able to deduce global statements leading to catastrophic predictions that require economic hara kiri from the west.
Brendan H
Good grief, you’re right (for once) 🙂
tonyb
[snip – 1010 is off topic for this thread ~mod]
I think it’s probably missing the boat to ascribe the current state of affairs to an AGW conspiracy.
I think an analogy with peacocks’ tails is probably closer to the truth.
How much selection pressure, in the form of the preferences of pea hens, does it take to produce something as spectacularly maladaptive as the huge, heavy tail of a peacock?
How much selection pressure, in the form of who gets grants, how much nit-picking scrutiny papers taking one position get vs. those taking the other position, tenure decisions, etc., would it take to drive the population of scientists in any field away from objective fact? Human social structures can change far more radically and far more quickly than the normal course of biological evolution, and social pressure can easily produce positive feedback loops that run off the rails in a number of ways.
[snip – DDT is off topic for this thread ~mod]
Hey Brendan H,
would all the so called highly respected climate scientists remain “eminent” if empirical evidence showed human induced global warming to be not significant?
its an interesting question. one part of me thinks they should still be eminent because of their wider range of contributions. the other part of me thinks that, because of the way they have carried on (eg being obnoxious, calling people deniers etc),
THEY SHOULD BURN IN ETERNAL PUNISHMENT
what do you think?
Starwatcher says:
“Any particular reason I should weight this guys opinion more then the society’s council that adopted the aforementioned statement?”
Yes. The society had to cheat to suppress him. Truth does not require that, nor does the real weight of the evidence.
I have read through almost all of the comments above; I was going to add something of my own but one snippet stood out and I shall repeat it as I wish to associate myself with it.
Jimash, at 08/10/2010 (UK style) 05:40pm said ““The Giants no longer walk the earth”, but one is walking out the door.”
Professor Lewis, you walk out of the door with your integrity enhanced and with the admiration of many.
I salute you.
FYI, Romm is attacking him now, predictably.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/11/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/
This will not be the last resignation letter. The religion of agw has been exposed.
Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of climate change. CO2 is a mere flea on the elephant’s ass, coming along for the ride.
The days are numbered for the grant money eaters (Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al).
OT Anthony better check if true, but it seems that it may be Wegman that may be doing the suing rather than the other way round re Rabbitman see Lucias latest. cheers
Request denied:
From: “Rachel Manteuffel”
Date: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:49 PM
Subject: Your op-ed submission to The Post
Thank you for your recent op-ed submission. The column was carefully
reviewed, but unfortunately The Post is not able to publish this piece.
You can submit future articles using our web submission form at
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/opeds/submit/.
Thanks,
Editorial Department
The Washington Post
Unfortunately me thinks the only way they is gonna be stopped is by voting out the dems (even though I usually vote dem)
“”” Stephan says:
October 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Unfortunately me thinks the only way they is gonna be stopped is by voting out the dems (even though I usually vote dem) “””
Well Stephen; without making any political judgement in regard to your post (above) ; perhaps your statement tells the whole story.
Too many people doing what they “usually do”;l evidently without any critical thinking involved. And the result is the total train wreck that we have in the Nation’s Capitol (USA); and likewise situations around the world.
As I wrestle myself with the some of the basic science of these issues; I constantly ask myself; am I just too ignorant of the science to see the picture; which seems to me as clear as my face is in a mirror.
When I read the words of people with the stature of Hal Lewis; it simply reinforces my belief, that I am not deluding myself; and even though I may not understand some details at the most fundamental levels; my basic instincts are on the right track.
Personally I’m convinced that the basic science of “climatism” is quite wrong; and the sky is not falling.
Which is not to say that climate won’t change; it always has and it always will, and there is nothing much we can do to influence that.
But we can certainly wreak terrible havoc in other ways; by following the path of stupidity; which is really worse than simple stupidity; because it is directed stupidity for political ends.
Well said George E. Smith.
California’s Green Nightmare
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/11/californias-green-nightmare
[Snip. Calling our readers “deniers” again. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
A resignation is rarely a major news story in most cases. If the Secretary of State resigns, it’s news regardless of the reason. If an Assistant Undersecretary for the Zimbabwean economic desk resigns, no one notices, no matter his resume. But if said heretofore unknown bureaucrat resigns because he learns his agency is subverting the Constitution to further the Secretary’s political/economic agenda, the resignation becomes the news vehicle to demonstrate his sincerity, and the seriousness of the underlying charge. The fact that Hal Lewis is resigning is news worthy because he is putting his reputation on the line to criticize his organization’s violation of its own constitution in support of the attempts of its leaders to support the CAGW gravy train. Since when is the squelching of CAGW dissent by a major science organization not news?
If the MSM could still kill a news story simply by ignoring it, there would never have been a “climategate.” The greatest virtue of the new alternative media is that the ABCNBCCBSCNNAPWashintionPostNewYorkTimes can no longer keep information from the public at large.
Stephan says:
October 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Unfortunately me thinks the only way they is gonna be stopped is by voting out the dems (even though I usually vote dem)
Sorry to hear that.
I applaud his courage. Speaking of physics global warming as it is depicted by the mods
I applaud his courage. Speaking of physics global warming as it is depicted by the climate scientists is false because they are based upon a false assumption: caloric theory.
Hockey stick assumes little to no buffering. I went from being a supporter of Mann to also calling for his resignation as well.
Yikes. Carbon just won the Nobel Physics prize.
Why physics shows global warming is self limiting:
Here is what the experts in thermodynamics say with full references at the end:
Classical thermodynamics was founded in the 19th century by: Carnot,Clausius (who based on Joule’s work disproved caloric theory) Joule, Helmholz, Kelvin, and Gibbs, amomg others.
In classical thermodynamics: only concerned with equlibrium states and many intro textbooks also only provide a treatment of equilibrium states. Idealized reversible processes that take place at an extremely slow rate, are only discussed like: dS = dQ/T. There is no denotion of time.
Modern thermodynamics was constructed by Lars Onsager, Theophile De Donder Ilya Prigogine and others in the 20th century.
In irreversible processes: dS is the change of S in time inrterval dt. This change is entropy is written as the sum of two terms:
dS = deS + diS where deS is the entropy change due to exchange of energy and matter and diS is the entropy change due to irreversible processes.
diS /dt is always positive in accordance with the second law.
Heat transfer is an irreversible process. In fact the evolution of a system towards a state of equilibrium is due to irrerversible processes. Heat only goes from a high temperature to a lower temperature at all times (See at the end the actual A,B and C explanation BPL attempts elsewhere).
Ofcourse for non-equilibrium system like the planet earth where temperature is not uniform we must use the terms energy and entropy.
Clausius stated:
1.) Die Energie der Welt ist Konstant. (modern thermodynamics upholds this)
2.) Die Entropie der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu. (Also upheld)
These two laws are laws of experience and no matter how many people have tried to find exceptions to them no one has been able to. Now in relation to statistical thermodynamics/mechanics we can do see some funky things that seem to violate the laws but they actually do not but that is not relevant to discussing the atmosphere and LW or SR.
From those two statements by Clausius then we get 4 fundamental equations from Gibbs who is called to this day the father of thermodynamics. From those 4 fundamental equations we can drive more than 50,000,000 equations relating to the thermodynamics properties of a given system all using quite simple mathematics. Most of the 50,000,000 equations are not of much help but many are useful in describing and predicting properties of chemical systems. That is chemical systems in terms of thermodynamics that provide empirical results but are difficult to replicate in a lab. Let it be clear that the laws of thermodynamics were founded based upon experiments and have never been shown to be violated.
Let it also be clear that the level of exactness of these two laws of experience have very few equals in all of science in all disciplines. The amazing amount of mathematical relationships that must be true if these two laws are true is also very unique in all of science as well.
The fundamental thermodynamic variables are: pressure (p) temperature (T) initial energy (U) and entropy (S). (side note: all gas laws fail at some point in high or lowe pressure and high or low temps, etc… so th real gas laws are not always better or “superior” to the ideal gas laws, but that is for a later time). Then there are the derived variables: H=U+ pV, A=U-TS and G=U+pV-Ts. p and t are intensive variables and all the others are extensive. Extensive variables can be made by dividing the number of moles (n) to give molar quantities: Vm, Um, Sm, Hm, Am, and Gm.
Gibbs equations are ingenious and it is a shame he took his life and they involve U and S which are fundamental thermodynamic variables. For the universe:
the summation of: du = 0
the summation of dS > 0.
du=sigmaq + sigmaw
ds > sigmaq/T.
Now correct if me if I am wrong but does not atmospheric, ocean, terrestial and gas dynamics involve: heat, temperature, work, pressure in general and one or more of each variable at a time?
Okay I am not just going to write out or derive equations alone so let me back up a bit now.
The invention of the steam engine gave birth to the science of thermodynamics. It converted heat into mechanical motion meaning heat is used to perform work. At firt thermodynamics was all about the study of heat and its ability to generate motion. Then later it merged with a larger subject which was of energy and its interconversion into one form and another and then later it evolved still further to study transformation of any matter in general and motion generated by q being a consequence. Energy and entropy are the two key elements of two laws.
When matter undergoes transformation the total energy of the system and its exterior is conserved but the total entropy can only increase. Albert Einstein himself remarked that thermodynamics were so capable of explaining so much phenomena that it would not overthrown in the context of the basic applications therein.
Three kinds of systems exist: isolated, closed and open. Though the earth is usually termed open due to radiation exchanges and minimal matter exchanges, some thermodynamics and physics textbooks consider many years of little to no matter exchange to consider it a closed system in that context. Obviously in terms of rediation transfer this planet is an open system otherwise the weather and temperature would be real different.
Finally the zeroeth law explains this:
If a system A is in thermal equilibrium with B and if B is in thermal equilibrium with system C then it follows that A is in thermal equilibrium with system C. That is for temperature uniformity.
BPL are you PBL from PPRUNE?
That link you left is all 100% incorrect and any physicist would say so. Only non-physicists and non-chemists would make claims like that of “does not know.”
We learn in first year inroganic chemistry and general physics why these things cannot be so but I left references below ranging from basic/advanced undergraduate to graduate level textbooks (though it is all the same song really).
What this also shows is that anyone who openly agreed with you either has not background in physics and chemistry or a very limited amount in first year undergrduate and did not listen to the laws of thermodynamics explained.
Here is a slightly more complex explanation of entropy which stems from chapter 5 in Nonequlibrium thermodyamics by Yasar Demirel:
“Entropy is a thermodynamic potential and is not conserved; it gives a quantitaive measure of irreversibility” (Demirel, 2008, chp. 5, pr 1).He then goes on to explaining that dS is an exact differential of the state function entropy, and the final result of the integration… tell me what does that mean?
References
Chemical Thermodynamics Bevan Ott and Juliana Boerio-Goates.
Introduction to Modern thermodynamics Dilip Kondepudi Thurman D Kitchin
Professor of Chemistry. Wake Forest University.
Nonequilbrium theromdynamics (2008) Transport and Rate Processes in
Physical and Biological Systems.
Stastical thermodynamics proves why thermodynamics cannot be violated at the micro-level. The correspondence principle is what this is called. Thus global warming cannot be depicted by the hockey stick accurately or have a run away effect ever.
I wish I could shake this man’s hand. I wish others had his integrity.
The sad thing about this entire mess is you don’t need to be a professor emeritus to see that it was a fraud. Anyone with an undergraduate degree in any of the hard sciences could recognize that “This just isn’t how science is done!” and would therefore smell a rat.
Again I lack the words sufficient to express the respect I have for this man.
Hat tip to you Hal!
Mike V says:
October 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I think it’s probably missing the boat to ascribe the current state of affairs to an AGW conspiracy.
Is this not a conspiracy?: UN´s Agenda 21:
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
I am proud to count myself as a friend of Hal Lewis. We have worked together with a few other APS members for nearly two years to try to effect a moderation of position and the support of sober scientific debate.
I would first like to amplify somewhat on one of the events mentioned by Dr. Lewis. In the spring of this year, we petitioned the APS to “commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming.” This petition is referenced in Dr. Lewis’s letter and was largely a response to the ClimateGate revelations. It was signed by 267 members and former members, including nearly 100 Fellows of major scientific societies, 17 members of national academies, and two Nobel laureates. A number have published major research on the global warming issue, authored books on the issue, or worked in contiguous areas of meteorology and climate. Nearly all have backgrounds in key science areas that underlie the global warming issue. This Petition has not yet been granted a response by the APS.
The APS pattern of unwillingness to engage a significant group of members in a meaningful manner stands in contrast to the Royal Society, as indicated by the recently issued Royal Society Climate Change: Summary of the Science. It represents a meaningful step toward moderation and the encouragement of sober scientific debate. That is not to say that the new RS statement is perfect, but I would suggest that the prestige of the RS has been enhanced, rather than impaired, by working positively with a relatively small group of Fellows who disagreed with the previous position. It is a matter of good faith in the cause of science.
[More fun with Dave Springer, quotation follows]
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 6:23 am
Daniel Kozub says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm
re; first rule of holes
Here is where you kept digging:
“Yes, in a closed system, with a black body, at thermal equillibrium.”
In the earth’s energy budget practically all incoming energy comes from the sun. Less than 1% from tidal friction, heat of formation, and radioactive decay. For the purpose of the energy budget the earth/sun system comprises a closed system.
“Your first error is inferring that all radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the earth.”
The commenter made no such inference that I could determine.
“Your second error is inferring that I was only including thermal radiation.”
I did not see that either. The commenter gave you a link to Kirchoff’s law which applies to all heated objects. The sun and earth are both heated objects with characteristic black body emission spectra of approximately 5000K and 300K respectively.
“Neither the sun nor the earth are black-bodies. But that isn’t an error in logic.”
Astronomy 101 – the sun and earth both approximate black bodies in their emission spectra.
“And the earth is far from being a closed system. Please research terrestrial energy sources, gravitation, gas laws, radioactive decay, relativity, and heat of formation.”
In the earth’s energy budget less than 1% of the energy comes from the sources you cite. In that context the sun/earth is a closed system.
“It’s sad that reading wikipedia can make you more ignorant.”
Not as sad as the same effect via a PhD program. At least in the case of wikipedia there are no tuition payments adding insult to injury.
[End Quotation]
Do you know the difference between an open and a closed system? Do you know what a practically closed system is? Seriously, you have a physics degree? This is high school level physics!
Thermodynamically, the earth and sun are an OPEN system. A flashlight is a closed system. A bomb calorimiter is another one.
Please tell me what color of visible light water emits at room temperature. What radio waves? What about a light bulb that isn’t on? The earth emits a smaller range of electromagnetic energy! I don’t think I’ll be able to teach you more than that about spectroscopy.
I think wikipedia and global warming discussion is tainting your definition of earth’s energy budget and specifically heat of formation. The earth has residual energy from its heat of formation. Every single chemical reaction has its own heat of formation. Every single one!
The heat of formation of one single kilogram of dried hardwood is about 15,000,000 Joules. Yes, 15 MJ for 1 kg. That energy is removed from the earth’s “energy budget”. It is not returned until it is completely combusted or decomposed (to O2, CO2, and N2).
This is a work-in-progress that I’ve spent a couple of weeks on: The estimation of total living biomass on the planet and it’s heat of formation seems like a daunting task to me. The best I can do is say it is probably on the order of 1 x 10^22 Joules. If that order of magnitude is correct, that would be approximately 1% of the yearly solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the earth. Adding bioavailable carbon and nitrogen into the ecosystem should increase the amount of living biomass (testable, falsifiable, and currently used in industrial greenhouses). Some of that biomass is essentially removed from the ecosystem every year. Some of that can eventually be turned into fossil fuels, which would retain a signicant amount of it’s heat of formation.
But that is variable and seems very difficult to measure. And it could be the location of Kevin Tennebreth’s “missing heat”. If it’s anywhere close to 1% of the sun’s yearly output, it would represent a significant portion the yearly change in the energy emitted from earth (temperature!). Well, significant if you consider tenths of degrees significant (hundreths and thousandths are in the scope of CCAGW).
Dave, slow your roll.
Sorta interesting that many, but not all, of the skeptics of AGW are the retired or near retirement scientists and those with the status of emeritus. On one hand, you could conclude retired scientists can say what they really think, now that they have little to no personal finances at risk. Unlike those scientists that still need to make a living, i.e., are employed by an organization that has publicly supported the hypothesis of catastrophic, human induced climate change.
On the other hand, you could conclude, as those who support the hypothesis of AGW, that guys like Harold Lewis, Fred Singer & Richard Lindzen are “old geezers” and they don’t understand the current climate models, or they once consulted with an evil energy company, and therefore can not be trusted.
Regardless of how one may interpret Lewis’ resignation letter, what I find most curious is the statement of “trillions of dollars” at stake. Lewis is not the first published scientist, nor likely the last, to make this claim. Ironically, it is the AGW alarmist crowd that has historically tried to paint energy corporations, certain politicians and skeptical scientists as having self interest, financial motivations for resisting legislation designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions, for example, or for being skeptical of the AGW hypothesis.
According to Wikipedia, USA’s GDP in 2009 was $14.3 trillion dollars and 100 quadrillon BTU’s were generated/consumed, with 8.4% due to renewable energy. According to American Petroleum Institute, the energy sector comprised 7.5% of our GDP.
Non-renewable Energy Industry $ in 2009 = $14.3 trillion x 0.075 x (1- 0.084) = $982.4 billion
Just for a very rough estimate, for example, a new 10% energy tax on non-renewable energy could raise $98.2 billion in new tax revenue a single year.
In 10 years, assuming 3%, annual growth, the new tax would generate a total sum of $1.1 trillion (assuming the new tax didn’t have the unintended consequence of retarding economic activity). This I believe is a very low estimate, as governments almost never tax a taxable activity only once!
As estimated in an Missoulian State Bureau article, the initial years of a national carbon trading system market in the U.S. is $150 billion/year (depends largely on the specifics of the legislation). I think I saw estimates of brokerage commissions ranging between 2.75% and 5.5%. So, another rough estimate, assuming a 3.7% brokerage commission and a 3% annual growth in the U.S. carbon trading market, the carbon traders could generate $63.6 billion over 10 years, just in commission fees alone. The New Energy Finance, a Britain-based research firm, said in a June 2009 report that the world’s carbon trading market could reach 3.5 trillion U.S. dollars by 2020 (assuming documented fraudulent trading practices are either shut-down or legitimized). This would equate to $130 billion in commissions per year worldwide.
So are “trillions” at stake if the AGW bubble bursts? Common sense and back-of-the-hand estimates says “yes”, certainly hundreds of billions and probably trillions are indeed at stake. Both the Washington and Wall Street stand to lose. According to Lewis, university careers are at stake as well.
Is the corrupting influence of money now more on the LEFT foot, perhaps?
Obama won’t tell. I don’t believe you will find the answer to these questions at websites like “Real Climate”, or in the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, CNN or PBS. Hell, I haven’t seen it on FOX either. Implementation of a cap and trade scheme will not “tell” either, simply because if the globe’s climate cools or stabilizes naturally, it will be claimed due to carbon emission reductions and if the climate warms, it will be claimed that it was worse than we thought, and we haven’t done enough!
Is AGW morphed into a greed driven scam? I don’t know for sure, but it sure is starting to smell like one.
The only chance for finding the truth is for complete, open and transparent public discussion of ALL the physical evidence for and against catastrophic, human-induced global warming. Until that is reasonably accomplished, the “science” of AGW is really not a science. It appears to me to have too much in common with a religious autocracy.
My congrats to Dr. Lewis for his efforts over his career.
I can only hope that more interested scientists and lay people consider looking at this link…
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/sustainable_oil_production.html
It seems that Mann, Jones, et al are pre-disposed to a theory WITHOUT considering all the facts.
I suppose any man who thinks he can control the climate is suffering from some sort of deeply disturbed complex.
I for one am interested in understanding exactly what is going on with the earth.
Until the science community decides to act on what Prof. Lewis has requested, we shall remain in the DARK Ages.
Ask questions, demand answers that consider all facts, don’t accept ‘D’ grade responses…ever.
Pshaw. The inclusion of this flat nonsense in the middle lets all the air out of Lewis’s “taking my ball and going home” rant.
Snort!
It is to guffaw, Anthony. Lewis’s letter will end up in the crackpot bin where it belongs.
JeffT, I read the report of the APS Kleppner committee. It was nothing more than a shallow recapitulation of the IPCC position, with no evident independent analysis of the science. I work with many physicists and have nothing but respect for their abilities and for the discipline. With that, I thought the Kleppner report was an insult to the profession.
It’s also ironic to note APS Councilor Dr. Brasseur’s self contradiction in the follow-on article, “Members Bombard Councilors with Messages on Climate Change.” In one part he,
“organized and categorized the first 180 messages he received to gauge the overall sentiments of the membership that responded. He found that 63 percent of respondents supported the existing statement with little or no change, while 37 percent said they opposed the current statement and wanted either no statement or the alternate statement adopted.”
Later, in the same article, ”
[Councilor Brasseur] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption
of scientifically unsound statements. Should [the process] be a democratic one or a science-based one?” Brasseur said, “I’m totally against the idea of a democratic poll of the membership.”
Councilor Brasseur, then, took comfort from a spontaneous email vote when it supported his view, but opposed a formal vote in apparent fear of contradiction.
Note also his patronizing attitude. Councilor Brasseur wants to exclude physicists from deciding a question of physics. Horrors! Physicists might engage in “scientifically unsound” physics. Councilor Brasseur thereby implicitly derogated trained physicists as a population of ignoramuses. Apparently he views a leadership that includes him as more competent to make physically sound judgments than mere hoi poloi physicists. His position exhibits the classical elitist disdain of popular intelligence.
The Kleppner report is behind a membership wall, by the way. The APS apparently decided to exclude the American public from the report that justifies the APS public policy on climate; a policy directed to influence the American government and to impact the American public. This exclusion, too, is an example of elitist disdain. The APS apparently has an anti-Hermetian view of ethical expectation. We have to exhibit it, but they don’t.
anna v
The things you mention are micro-climate not global climate. Urban heat islands – just a larger version of a campfire. We can’t even make it rain when there’s a drought or make it stop raining when there’s a flood and even if we could that’s still just changing the weather not the climate.
@Daniel Kozub
“Thermodynamically, the earth and sun are an OPEN system. A flashlight is a closed system. A bomb calorimiter is another one.”
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel…
Everyone with a passing knowledge of physics knows that closed systems are an ideal state that doesn’t exist in nature as it requires total isolation from the rest of the universe. Tell me how you’d isolate any point in our galaxy from the gravitational effects of the Andromeda galaxy. We don’t even know if the entire universe is a closed system because we don’t know what lies outside the observable portion of it.
I’m fixin’ to give up on you unless you start showing at least a high school level understanding of basic physics. No system in the real world is closed. Some are just closer approximations than others. Write that down.
The sun/earth system closely approximates a closed system for most practical purposes and certainly so for the earth’s energy budget.
@Daniel Kozub
“Please tell me what color of visible light water emits at room temperature.”
The electromagnetic frequency range that human eyeballs can discriminate is irrelevant – EMR is EMR. This may be the most asinine thing you’ve written so far but I could be wrong because there are so many asinine things you’ve written vying for the title.
Jacob Mack says:
October 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“Stastical thermodynamics proves why thermodynamics cannot be violated at the micro-level. The correspondence principle is what this is called. Thus global warming cannot be depicted by the hockey stick accurately or have a run away effect ever.”
Jacob, your posts are fantastic!
My conversion to a skeptic happened similarly. At first, the global warming hypothesis seemed plausible. I flipped when I learned about the positive feedbacks/runaway global warming that they associated with water vapor. If such a feedback system existed (CO2–>heat–>increased H2O–>heat–>increased H2O–>heat–>etc…), then the earth would have exhibited that feedback loop in the past. And it would likely have lead to the atmosphere venting into space.
Years of FT-IR analysis and the necessity for me to hold my breath while openning the sample chamber made me VERY familiar with the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and water vapor. Connecting the dots was easy after that. Okay, not easy. But that gave me fuel to search out the answers and discover the scientific flaws.
I’d like to pick your brain:
Can you explain caloric theory and how it applies in this debate?
As used by the CCAGW orthodoxy, is the earth a closed or open system? I consider their use as of it as an open system, but they seem to call it closed. Am I correct identifying the earth and sun as an open system in regard to radiation transfer and an open system in regard to total energy but approximating a closed system?
Regarding the ideal gas law, how accurate is pV=nRT with the entire troposhere as an ideal gas? What about near the earth’s surface?
My guess is that it doesn’t fit very well or not at all. The average height of the tropopause is variable, and currently very low. Surface temperature and pressure are recorded at most weather stations. R is a constant, and n is nearly constant. So does the change in volume match the changes in pressure and temperature? Is there a change in entropy? Does math and physics have an answer to this?
I’m having difficulty finding data for the average height of the tropopause and average barometric pressure. Any ideas where to find it?
Thank you.
[Here we go again! Who’s the foolest fool?]
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 9:03 pm
@Daniel Kozub
“Thermodynamically, the earth and sun are an OPEN system. A flashlight is a closed system. A bomb calorimiter is another one.”
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel…
Everyone with a passing knowledge of physics knows that closed systems are an ideal state that doesn’t exist in nature as it requires total isolation from the rest of the universe. Tell me how you’d isolate any point in our galaxy from the gravitational effects of the Andromeda galaxy. We don’t even know if the entire universe is a closed system because we don’t know what lies outside the observable portion of it.
I’m fixin’ to give up on you unless you start showing at least a high school level understanding of basic physics. No system in the real world is closed. Some are just closer approximations than others. Write that down.
The sun/earth system closely approximates a closed system for most practical purposes and certainly so for the earth’s energy budget.
[End Quotation]
You are describing an ISOLATED system. Your wiki-fu is weak.
Ten Trillion Dollar per year market in “Carbon” emission was proposed by Chicago Climate Exchange founder Richard Sandor, link at http://banksterreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/10-trillion-emissions-market.html
and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlWm8sbxfok
So the founders of the CCX certainly expect to make an obscene amount of money off the energy use of everyone. So everyone’s costs go up, and these people make out like mega bandits and zero difference is made to “saving the planet”.
“In the earth’s energy budget practically all incoming energy comes from the sun. Less than 1% from tidal friction, heat of formation, and radioactive decay. For the purpose of the energy budget the earth/sun system comprises a closed system.”
So the magnetic flux tubes connecting the earth with its plasma environment, in which 100,000’s amperes have been measured by THEMIS satellites contributes nothing to the earth’s energy budget, then. Whoops I also forgot the Birkeland currents at the poles.
So one could think about what proportion solar radiation is in terms of the other electromagnetic energy sources now being discovered by space exploration. I suspect it might be about 10% once we finally figure it out.
Jacob Mack says:
October 11, 2010 at 5:46 pm
“At firt thermodynamics was all about the study of heat and its ability to generate motion. Then later it merged with a larger subject which was of energy and its interconversion into one form and another and then later it evolved still further to study transformation of any matter in general and motion generated by q being a consequence.”
Quite right. It has further transformed to include information which also appears to obey fundamental laws of conservation and entropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory
A long famous argument took place between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind about whether information could be destroyed in even the most extreme case imaginable – an enclopedia crossing over the event horizen into a black hole. Hawking bet that information could be destroyed, or at least lost to the rest of the universe in this manner. He conceded the bet a few years ago. As far as anyone can tell information, like energy, can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only change form. Likewise it follows the law of increasing entropy. Fascinating stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Outside The Box says:
October 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm
“I suppose any man who thinks he can control the climate is suffering from some sort of deeply disturbed complex.”
Hubris on steroids.
[Let me know if you’re feeling stupid yet. I sure am!]
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 9:10 pm
@Daniel Kozub
“Please tell me what color of visible light water emits at room temperature.”
The electromagnetic frequency range that human eyeballs can discriminate is irrelevant – EMR is EMR. This may be the most asinine thing you’ve written so far but I could be wrong because there are so many asinine things you’ve written vying for the title.
[End Quotation]
Who said anything about eyeballs? I’m looking for a UV-vis spectrogram.
Produce it.
Hint: It will look like this: 0.00000000 ____________________________
400 700
I see you punted on the unpowered light bulb. Maybe you’re starting to think. Why would something heated to 3,500K emit white light, but none at 300K?
If you forgot your original point, you were telling me that the earth and the sun emit radiation in the exact same spectral range.
My faith in Physics and the Physics community is restored. The truth will not be hidden forever.
Bravo Dr. Lewis
[From Paul Birch. Refreshing, thank you.]
Paul Birch says:
October 11, 2010 at 8:16 am
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 6:38 am
“@Daniel Kozub
You ask which things are not falsifiable.
Pretty much all those which refer to anthropogenic driven climate change, either local or global.
How do you propose isolating the anthropogenic factor(s) in question? Absent a time machine we can’t go back in time and remove the anthropogenic contribution to see what happens. This is a problem with all forensic sciences. Climate change is not an experiment that can be repeated with one variable isolated for study.”
Partly this is a matter of wording. The hypothesis that man is able to influence climate is probably not falsifiable; however, the hypothesis that man is unable to influence climate is falsifiable. It could be falsified by eg, scattering a large quantity of reflective chaff in orbit (or by any other drastic intervention sufficient to dominate the natural variations, or by an intervention we can switch on and off at will to isolate its signal – such as a soletta mirror). A scientific experiment capable of verifying or falsifying a hypothesis does not necessarily have to be repeatable, so long as the prediction of what will be observed is sufficiently robust and discriminatory. For example, if I predict that pushing you off a high cliff will kill you, I would be able to carry out the experiment exactly once – assuming that my theory is correct! – ’cause you’d be dead after the first run through. It would still constitute pretty good evidence, though.
[End Quotation]
Paul,
The following is an example of a once untested but falsifiable hypothesis. It became a once tested and falsified concept. It also, conveniently, is an example of anthropogenic climate change.
In 1991, during the US-led/UN Coalition invasion of Kuwait (the first Gulf War), Sadaam Hussein ordered his army to light the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire. They burned uncontrolled for most of the year. Carl Sagan predicted (prior to the event!) that the soot would darken the skies, lower the temperature, and decrease Asian crop yeilds for years. He described it as a (large) regional version of nuclear winter.
The skies did darken, the temperatures did drop, the rain was black. But the soot never escaped the troposphere, and rain scrubbed the soot from the atmosphere quickly. Even thought he spent a lot of his career on the fringe, Carl Sagan was a true scientist. He admitted that this event busted his nuclear winter hypothesis.
Sadly, the story didn’t end there. Climate modellers have taken up the banner of nuclear winter again. Guess what? IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!!
The climate model used?
Wait for it…
NASA/GISS Model E!!!!!!!!!
LMAO! I can’t make this up.
Dr. Lewis deserves kudos beyond this site; he is at the end of his career and does not need to worry about his future in physics. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of the politically motivated, money driven “global warming” FRAUD apparently are still in their earning mode, as well as many well meaning actual scientists who are properly appalled at the misuse of the emperical scientific process for personal and political gain. I have always had the utmost respect for the scientific methods and results, as it was, along with mathematics, the last bastion of honesty in a world driven “mad” by grossly inflated personal egos in this so called information society. If we as U.S. and world citizens cannot believe scientific papers, what can be trusted? It was obvious from the start with this issue of the alleged climate changes that something was amiss. Those persons who would criticize Hal Lewis are no better than the frauds who lead us to this point.
Science is dead. The only way to bring back science is…
total separation of science and state… including state funding.
“This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. ”
Wow.
This just in: Old guy leaves a science society, reforms Christianity.
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Actually in that post she mentions both and puts a finer point on it to boot:
Some good publicity for the sceptic side in today’s Daily Express…
GLOBAL WARMING IS ‘THE GREATEST FRAUD IN 60 YEARS’
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/204880
“A TOP American professor has quit a prestigious academic body after claiming that global warming has become a “scam” driven by “trillions of dollars” which has “corrupted” scientists.”
Anthony;
Many thanks for the link to Romm’s discussion:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/11/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/
I’m truely astounded Mr. Romm can, in one large-printbreath
say Dr. Lewis’s resignation represents, ” An unimportant
moment in science history…”. then expound paragraph
upon paragragh as to how this event ties in with so many
others he appears to detest and have shouted about many
times.
Since it’s so “ unimportant” why send so many
flaming epithets at the Doctor ?
We had a magazine come into our house back in the
late 1960’s titled “American Opinion Magazine”.
In it a great many folks were declared to be commies, pinkos,
fellow-travelers, closet socialists and one-worlders. The
levels of documentation for these accusations and the quality
of rhetoric were very similar to Mr. Romm’s column on the
Lewis resignation.
The good old John Birch Society advertised their books,
pamphlets and school educational films in American
Opinion Magazine
Romm’s jabbering could have been reduced to the elegant
headline, “Dr. Who ??. Then followed it with one
line obit-type entry, “On Friday, 08 October 2010, Hal Lewis
resigned as an emeritus member of the American Physical
Society.”
Everything else he’s saying is sour grapes.
TonyB says: “Brendan H
Good grief, you’re right (for once) :)”
Bound to happen occasionally 🙂
interesting question: “would all the so called highly respected climate scientists remain “eminent” if empirical evidence showed human induced global warming to be not significant?”
That’s an interesting question, interesting question. I don’t think I said that climate scientists were “eminent”, but I bow to your judgement on that one. Whether they would remain eminent if found to be mistaken, I don’t see why not, unless you are equating “eminent” with “infallible”.
“THEY SHOULD BURN IN ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
what do you think?”
I think that eternity is a very long time, and human beings are finite. In which case, eternal punishment would be impossible. Even if it were possible, and the scientists were shown to have done very bad things, an eternal punishment for finite acts seems disproportionate.
The A.P.S. NEEDS TO REMEMBER TO USE IT’S OWN ADVICE”into Not Fooling Themselves”
“Fooling Students into Not Fooling Themselves”
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/spring2002/hall/hall.html
“Science as a Safeguard”<<Oh!! the irony,Please read it.
"safeguards known as the scientific method were developed;”6 safeguards such as control samples, blind (and double blind) studies, and peer review."
AND
"how wrong things can go if one does not adequately guard against such pitfalls."
To DocBud
Fair point. However I have to add that this is not just a resignation letter, it has been made available for wide spread publication and as such seeks to contribute to the ‘debate’. Thus I don’t think a little more by way of meat and potatos is unreasonable otherwise the letter simply becomes an example of appeal from authority.
To Kate
I think you will find that the behaviour of CO2 as a green house gas is pretty well understood.
Brendan H,
No need for the extreme answers I provide, although the answer to the interesting questions is not simple. Giving them the window seat is probably to harsh.
My solution is to ignore them, that’s all.
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“@Paul Birch “however, the hypothesis that man is unable to influence climate is falsifiable”
How’s that, Paul? We have one earth that we do something to and a control earth that we do nothing to?”
I said: “… however, the hypothesis that man is unable to influence climate is falsifiable. It could be falsified by eg, scattering a large quantity of reflective chaff in orbit (or by any other drastic intervention sufficient to dominate the natural variations, or by an intervention we can switch on and off at will to isolate its signal – such as a soletta mirror). A scientific experiment capable of verifying or falsifying a hypothesis does not necessarily have to be repeatable, so long as the prediction of what will be observed is sufficiently robust and discriminatory. For example, if I predict that pushing you off a high cliff will kill you, I would be able to carry out the experiment exactly once – assuming that my theory is correct! – ’cause you’d be dead after the first run through. It would still constitute pretty good evidence, though.”
What didn’t you understand there? Controls are not necessary in science, though they’re jolly useful when you can manage them.
I see from the Global Warming Policy Foundation website that Dr Lewis has agreed to join their Academic Advisory Council.
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1687-professor-hal-lewis-joins-the-gwpf.html
Hal Lewis joins GWPF’s Advisory Council.
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1687-professor-hal-lewis-joins-the-gwpf.html
see revised list of his new colleagues here:-
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html
includes – Prof Lindzen, Prof McKitrick, Prof Freeman Dyson
Professor Lewis is to be congratulated for his stand, however I fear that his taking of a principled position will not be enough to save science.
Save science? Does science need saving?
Not yet, but it will do. Science is currently respected because it is trusted. It is trusted because of the principles of people like Professor Lewis and his Victorian forbears who worked so hard to make science a doctrine based purely on evidence and fact and not on political expediency, fame or financial reward.
Regardless of what Professor Lewis, Michael Mann or the IPCC do or say, the final word on “climate change” will be had by the climate itself. Whether that is in twenty, fifty or one hundred years time is irrelevant – what is relevant is that if science has made the claim that CO2 drives temperature and the reality in twenty, fifty or one hundred years time contradicts that then science will have ruined its reputation and will have lost the trust of the public.
That trust will not be regained easily. Those people in the APS – or, indeed, the RS in Britain – are placing a heavy burden on their successors. They have no right to do that any more than they have the right to discard the principles and morals upon which their institutions were founded.
“The President of the APS, Professor Curt Callan, said: “The use of the word ‘scam’ is ridiculous. To dismiss the work of large numbers of honest, hard-working scientists as a scam is just silly.””
To an extent, I agree, though the description of the use of the word “scam” I’d use would be inaccurate. Words like scam, hoax, or fraud are far too small, and tend to trivialize the CAGW/CC/CD monstrosity. It is an industry based on a lie. All else stems from that fact. The “scientists” who support that industry may indeed be hard-working, but their honesty is in question. In essence, all they are doing is punching the CAGW/CC/CD time clock. They are putting their time in, but they are no longer scientists. Surely some part of them must realize that fact.
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.
——————-
So where do these trillions of dollars actually come from? The total USA climate change budget appears to be 2000 milion dollars per year.
To get trillions you need to have climate change activities on the same scale as military expenditures and that ain’t happening. Somebody has been lying to the old guy.
P.S. I do not approve of exploiting a 90 year old by waving him around like a propaganda flag to be shot at. Let him enjoy his grumpy old guy years in peace.
OT but the ice game is over
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Dear Moderator,
The comments here form a ‘must-read’ part of any article on WUWT. The mostly well-informed, pertinent and sometimes funny comments are one of the highlights of the site.
But please consider introducing nested comments so that we can easily follow discussion relating to a specific point raised by a commenter.
@Paul Birch
What you described in pushing me off a cliff is:
{model}->{certain expected observations}} + {expected observations actually observed} /: Therefore, {model}.
If you don’t see the fallacy there I’m not going to help you find it because at that point my model of you would conclude you’re beyond help.
Thanks for playing.
Steve Allen says
——————
Just for a very rough estimate, for example, a new 10% energy tax on non-renewable energy could raise $98.2 billion in new tax revenue a single year.
————
I like your numbers, but I think you are forgetting the whole purpose of a carbon tax or cap and trade; its to incentivise energy efficiecy. That will reduce the taxes paid on average.
the apropriate word to use is:
Delusion
@Daniel Kozub
I have no love lost for Carl Sagan but a burning oil well is hardly comparable to a nuclear detonation. The former produces particulates that rise only as far as convection can carry them. The latter produces particulates that are driven into the stratosphere. If Sagan abandoned the nuclear winter hypothesis because of what happened from oil well fires he abandoned it prematurely to say the least. A much better proxy for a multiplicity of surface nuclear detonations is a volcanic eruption and we know from the satellite temperature record that Pinatubo reduced global average troposphere temperature by half a degree and the effect persisted for two years.
—————
HBCRod and jazznick,
Thanks for the links!
The independent scientists are gathering together in open science venues. GO GWPF!
Just like many independent thinkers and scientists are gathering here at WUWT. GO ANTHONY!
John
re; Sagan, Gulf War oil well fires, and nuclear winter hypothesis
Unfortunately for Sagan it wasn’t until after his death (1996) that confirmation of stratospheric particulates injected by firestorms was first confirmed (1998).
See the references for this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrocumulonimbus_cloud
Lazy,
You’re living up to your nic. Didn’t you see Steve Allen’s 10/11/10, 7:28 PM post or Graeme’s 10/11/10, 9:38 AM posts?
BTW: The world economy does not only consist of the “USA climate change budget” for just one year.
Refreshing to see a real scientist place his honesty and ethics above monitary rewards. I liked his emphasis on the word “incontrovertible”. The jump that’s been made from the term “greenhouse gas” to “incontrovertible evidence” should be well noted. There has seemingly been little proof that there is indeed such a thing as a “greenhouse gas” beyond perhaps simple water vapor, yet the leap is made past this premise to an arrogant conclusion that not only are there greenhouse gases, but that there are many. Many, many different kinds with a new term now “CO2E” – E for “equivalent” (thanks to an EPA more than willing to toe the party line) and we are expected to believe that these are mostly all man made and causing global warming – a “fact” with nearly no evidence, and plenty of reasons why it should be disputed and questioned – debated if possible rather than supressed with another arrogant declaration that this has been accomplished and the “debate is over”. The is no science here. This has become a blatant political scandal with pure political motives. The motives are socialist in nature: control, tax, rule, and finally “reap huge financial rewards”. We need look no further than our own Al Gore to see how true the latter is. When you control energy and the free markets, you control the world.
When I was a kid, I was persuaded to Join a Boys Brigade troop attached to a Baptist church by a Baptist schoolmate. Boys Brigade was similar to the Boy Scouts, which I also belonged to, but with a lot more preaching and a drum-and-bugle marching band. I wanted to be a drummer. Joining that Boys Brigade troop was my introduction to full-on Baptist hellfire-and-damnation preaching. I didn’t stay long, despite being allowed to learn drumming!
I just read Joe Romm’s rant about Prof Lewis’s retirement and it bought back my long-ago discomfort with raving religionists who shout nonsense passionately. I shuddered and clicked quietly back to sanity and gentlemany discourse at WUWT.
Dave Springer says:
October 12, 2010 at 5:46 am
“@Paul Birch
What you described in pushing me off a cliff is:
{model}->{certain expected observations}} + {expected observations actually observed} /: Therefore, {model}.
If you don’t see the fallacy there I’m not going to help you find it because at that point my model of you would conclude you’re beyond help.”
No, it isn’t. To the extent that it’s a syllogism at all (which in science, unlike maths, it seldom is, being instead a probabilistic weighting of evidence) that would be {{{theory}–>{observations}}+{{not theory}–>{not observations}}+{observations}}–>{theory}. If you can’t see why my belief that pushing you off a cliff is fatal is sound, even if I only do it once, then you’re beyond help and must have fallen off a mental cliff already!
Paul Birch says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:10 am
You are right: That’s the state of “science”now: It has been divided by zero or way out this universe, by multiplying mass by the velocity of light SQUARED! (was it not that the limit was the velocity of light?): It has reached the “twilight zone” of the land of “never more”.
Let’s get back to rationality and simplicity, to a “canon”, again:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
Thank you Dr. Lewis.
FWIW Martin Luther was a raging antisemite.
REPLY: Professor Halpern, really? Are you that desperate to poison the comparison of an act of defiance against consensus?
What next? Shall we tag individual prominent Lutherans as embracing anti-semitism now? Shall we assume then your claim extends to the entire Lutheran church today as anti-semitic?
Go back to your fantasy wonderland rabett hole. – Anthony Watts
If there a any APS members who are regular commenters here, please let us know if there significant drops in APS membership from now.
John
Dave Springer says:
October 12, 2010 at 6:21 am
“…A much better proxy for a multiplicity of surface nuclear detonations is a volcanic eruption and we know from the satellite temperature record that Pinatubo reduced global average troposphere temperature by half a degree and the effect persisted for two years.”
Two potential problems comparing the possibility of a ‘nuclear winter’ with volcanoes:-
Due to natural climate oscillations it is not possible to isolate the 0.5K signal, and because of the deterministic chaos inherent in weather/climate trends are no help in proving the case.
Volcanoes also often spew out sulphur compounds, which have been theorised to affect climate – nuclear explosions don’t.
In it’s current incarnation climate makes too many assumptions based on low granularity data of dubious accuracy and a poor factual understanding about how it works.
“FWIW”, Eli Rabett ?
Well, it’s worth jack-shit! Pardon me for the vulgar expression but you don’t deserve any better.
“”” marco says:
October 12, 2010 at 12:32 am
To DocBud
Fair point. However I have to add that this is not just a resignation letter, it has been made available for wide spread publication and as such seeks to contribute to the ‘debate’. Thus I don’t think a little more by way of meat and potatos is unreasonable otherwise the letter simply becomes an example of appeal from authority.
To Kate
I think you will find that the behaviour of CO2 as a green house gas is pretty well understood. “””
Well Marco, I suspect that there are quite a few of us (incuding me) who are not at all concerned about the state of knowledge of the behavior of CO2 as a “Green House” gas; and yes we are even happy to say that of course real “greenhouses” don’t work the same way that GHGs do; but we know what the term means as far as climate science goes.
So GHGs of all kinds warm the atmosphere; whoop de do ! And so does the incoming sunlight, via other spectral absorption paths; including O2, O3, and H2O. All of those things warm the atmosphere; some of us are pretty sure of that.
And then there is the real problem of what does a warmer atmosphere have to do with climate and in particular catastrophic climate change. The atmosphere itself really doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about how it got warmed up a bit; the end result is that it radiates thermal LWIR radiation in an isotropic radiation pattern; about half of which is lost to space; and the other half (roughly) interracts with the surface in some way. And of course there’s a whole gamut of other thermal processes that are modified in some way by a slightly warmer atmosphere, some of which like convection, result in the transport of additional heat energy into the upper atmopshere for ultimate loss to space.
So just what CO2 does as a GHG is of relatively little importance; it is what a slightly warmer atmosphere does to affect climate that is the real issue; and unfortunately, there are other influences like cloud coverage, that have a much more dramatic and controlling influence than any slight increase in atmospheric Temperature.
So the GHG effect is as you say fairly well understood; and also of relatively little significance in affecting climate.
Thank you Dr Lewis. Below are some common sense facts to support you views.
The Greenhouse effect as applied by Arrhenius, the IPCC, the APS, the UK Royal Society, California’s CO2 reduction law- AB32, and the US NAS is flawed.
The “rule” (AR4, WG1,Ch1 p116) is “More GHGs means more warming” This does NOT work. When you add more GHG water vapor, when it rains, the temperature does not increase. When the sun goes down and you still add more CO2/GHGs, the temperature does NOT increase. But when you add photons every morning the temperature does increase.
Arrhenius’ flawed science should have read: When you add more energy photons you get more warming, AND you get more Greenhouse effect warming. Arrhenius ignored that the number of GHGs in the air exceeds the number of energy photons available in the air. Otherwise the greenhouse effect would continue warming the air until all the photons were in use.
The number of CO2 molecules available to absorb 15um photons is about 390ppm. The number of Water Vapor vapor molecules available to absorb a similar number of 7or 20 um photons is about 2 to 4% or 40,000 ppm. There is an excess of GHG molecules to be used by the GHE whenever more photons become available.
Whenever the number of photons decreases (e eg with very night, winter, little ice age, major ice age etc temp decrease) the GHGs that were being used for the GHE are released back to the air to be more excess GHGs. Man just adds more to the excess.
The number of photons dictates and limits the amount of the Greenhouse Effect. Anyone who claims that more GHGs means more warming in the air is defrauding you. Reducing added GHGs has no impact on temperature, since it just reduces the number of excess GHGs.. California 2010 election Proposition 23 will save wasting money on a fraud.
See “Arrhenius Mis-Applied the Greenhouse Effect”, “Gravity Causes Climate Change” and
“John Dodds Wobble Theory of Global Warming”available at http://www.scribd.com for more information about the variable sources of more photons and why they are causing the current Sept/Oct 2010 warming peaks.
Well, well, Mr Holdren was right… Is it a “Global Climate [consensus] Disruption”!
JFB
Chris Schoneveld says:
October 12, 2010 at 10:40 am
Funny, just imagine that very black joke: Do you know the difference between WWII and WWIII?
I won’t repeat it (it would be snipped off)but the answer referred to updated appliances.
A question: my son-in-law, a bright PhD in bioengineering, drank the cool aid for several years and sincerely believes in academia’s global warming, man is evil, the earth will die or significantly change etc. If I were to confront him with this article, he would reply, “It’s a rogue dissenter; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who disagree with Mr. Lewis.” How can I counter this argument in a logical, scientific way? Why are there so few dissenters? Thanks
Is it possible to start a new Physical Society, with physicists that are not part of the corruption? The number of honest people should make it possible.
Andre G says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:14 am
Maybe buy him a copy of the Hockeystick Illusion?
Randy K: October 12, 2010 at 11:34 am
“Is it possible to start a new Physical Society”
Yes, call the new society the “American Physics Society”.
Strong decision..
Eli Rabbett’s gratuitous nastiness re Martin Luther is probably a bye-product of the fact that every Christian of that era prior to the Reformation held the Jews responsible for killing Christ. Luther wanted to reform the Church, so Luther nailing his theses to the church door is an excellent metaphor for Prof Hal Lewis’s stance with regard to the APS. Carbon trading is not so very different from the Church of that era selling indulgence, when all is said and done.
…and immediately Climateprogress goes Alinsky on Al, treating him like a nobody old man
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/11/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/
LazyTeenager says:
October 12, 2010 at 5:29 am
So where do these trillions of dollars actually come from?
They’ll be coming from you – if you ever get a job.
“”””” John Dodds says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:04 am
Thank you Dr Lewis. Below are some common sense facts to support you views.
The number of Water Vapor vapor molecules available to absorb a similar number of 7or 20 um photons is about 2 to 4% or 40,000 ppm. There is an excess of GHG molecules to be used by the GHE whenever more photons become available.
Whenever the number of photons decreases (e eg with very night, winter, little ice age, major ice age etc temp decrease) the GHGs that were being used for the GHE are released back to the air to be more excess GHGs. Man just adds more to the excess.
………………………………
See “Arrhenius Mis-Applied the Greenhouse Effect”, “Gravity Causes Climate Change” and
“John Dodds Wobble Theory of Global Warming”available at http://www.scribd.com for more information about the variable sources of more photons and why they are causing the current Sept/Oct 2010 warming peaks. “””””
Well John; how much do you charge for a reprint of your peer reviewed wobble theory of global warming. ?
If you spend much time at WUWT, you will find enough new theories of global warming each with people’s names attached, presumably to distinguish them (the theories) from each other; to satisfy anybody’s craving for more scientific understanding.
I have an idea myself about how I think weather/climate; as far as “Global warming” goes; but I’m sure if I appended my name to it I would be laughed out of WUWT territory.
But I always appreciate new theories; it often brings to light, things I would never have thought of in a million years; so thanks for sharing.
I’m strictly a one beer man; so I don’t actually do a lot of wobbling.
marco says:
October 12, 2010 at 12:32 am
I think you will find that the behaviour of CO2 as a green house gas is pretty well understood.
OK, let’s see your proof that Miskolczi is wrong. If you can’t provide such a proof you are admitting your statement is false.
LazyTeenager,
“P.S. I do not approve of exploiting a 90 year old by waving him around like a propaganda flag to be shot at. Let him enjoy his grumpy old guy years in peace.”
The only one shooting round here is you.
Lazy know-it-all:
“That will reduce the taxes paid on average.”
Why am I reminded of those “temporary” tax surcharges of the 60s and the Alternative Minimum Tax of the 80s, which was only “aimed at the rich”?
BTW, last year, the world emitted about 31 billion tonnes of CO2 (and the number would have been higher except for a crippling worldwide recession). What is your idea of a “fair price on carbon”?
Andre G says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:14 am
A question: my son-in-law, a bright PhD in bioengineering, drank the cool aid for several years and sincerely believes in academia’s global warming, man is evil, the earth will die or significantly change etc. If I were to confront him with this article, he would reply, “It’s a rogue dissenter; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who disagree with Mr. Lewis.” How can I counter this argument in a logical, scientific way? Why are there so few dissenters? Thanks
Your son-in-law’s hypothetical statements are illogical suppositions, using the typical warmist ploys of ad hominem (“rogue dissenter”), and argumentum ad populum (appeal to consensus) arguments. As far as science or truth goes, it matters not how many dissenters, or why more do not step forward, but it takes great courage and moral fiber to go against the “status quo”, and against ones peers. Ironically, though, once someone of Hal Lewis’ stature does so, it perhaps makes things a bit easier for others to step up.
Avid kool aid drinkers usually have other tricks up their sleeves as well, of course. They seem particularly fond of the straw man, and use of red herrings. Sooner or later though, they have to get down to some actual science, and that is where they go horribly wrong. Watch that they do not have any little red buttons nearby.
G.E. Smith;
The warmists and lukewarmists have never taken on and answered this seminal cite:
My bolding.
So it cedes far too much to acknowledge that CO2 participates in any postulated or speculated GH mechanism. Lukewarmists’ tepid thinking notwithstanding.
“A question: my son-in-law, a bright PhD in bioengineering, drank the cool aid for several years and sincerely believes in academia’s global warming, man is evil, the earth will die or significantly change etc. If I were to confront him with this article, he would reply, “It’s a rogue dissenter; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who disagree with Mr. Lewis.” How can I counter this argument in a logical, scientific way?”
Rather than trying to counter him why not consider that he might be right? Lewis isn’t an expert on climate science. He isn’t famous. I see nothing to differentiate Lewis from anyone else who comes along and claims “it’s a scam”. Except he was in a position to “resign” from the APS. This whole thing is ridiculously overblown in my opinion.
My apologies if this was posted before, but I thought you gentlemen protecting us would want to see it:
Thank you for all you do from a humble electronics engineer.
Larry
Bohren and Clothiaux Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation (Physics Textbook) covers part of the relevant science. Is there any textbook that is at this level of technical detail that includes actual derivations of the rest of the science for global warming? If so, what text(s)?
Why can’t they put together a multi volume binder set of the detailed math derivations of each component of their models? This would have the step by step at the same level as the more pedagogical physics texts and cover every single equation in the computer codes for global warming and every single equation for statistical estimation and also have the data on-line.
Since its going to cost us trillions of dollars, this should be posted on-line for free for everyone to read and for proponents of global warming to link to the relevant equations and detailed derivations in this on-line reference.
Can’t they get a grant of a couple million dollars to do a high quality job on-line that is open to everyone to look at the math and the derivations and that is linkable?
>the whole purpose of a carbon tax or cap and trade; its to incentivise energy efficiecy.
Capitalism yields energy efficiency through demand elasticity, viz. consumers seeking low prices, as well as the action of entrepeneurs and speculators pursuing profit opportunities. It’s not clear how government intervention can do anything but disturb the balance arrived at by freely acting, choosing market participants. “Incentivising” energy efficiency is just another name for promoting wasteful capital expenditures on R&D, and destroying peoples’ ability to enjoy desired energy-consuming goods and services.
Look what happens when the government mandates efficient use of other goods – e.g. water used for feces disposal: http://mises.org/daily/3997
>That will reduce the taxes paid on average.
So you’re argument is that the government should perpetrate certain kinds of robberies, because it will allow a reduction in other robberies it is committing.
Officially the APS is the American Physical Society. But are they becoming the American Pseudo-science Society? Or better yet, are they becoming the Atmospheric Pseudo-science Society.
Once a noble endeavor . . . . integrity once lost . . . .
John
I have to show this, here, somewhere. Written by Professor Bob Carter picked up in the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition website.
“They deny that the Earth’s climate is cooling; they deny that the climate models on which their global warming policies are based are worthless as predictive tools; they deny that the IPCC and its advice are flawed beyond repair; they deny that the Copenhagen Conference was a failure; they deny that carbon dioxide is an environmental benefice; they deny that Climategate is any more than an isolated, minor squabble among a few climate research cognoscenti; they deny that they have allowed their young people to be educationally brainwashed about global warming; they deny that the science research community has been corrupted by their agenda-driven funding requirements; they deny that government science-related organizations, at their behest, have been acting as propagandists for eco-evangelistic causes; they deny that windfarms and solar power are environmentally damaging and uneconomic for baseload power generation; they continue to strive to deny public voice to independent scientific viewpoints on climate change; and, above all, they deny that they are wrong in their continued assertions that human-caused global warming is an identified and deadly danger.”
SNIP since this contained an insult to me personally with your essay, I’ll be happy to publish it on one condition: put your real name to your words. Otherwise shut up. I won’t be insulted by cowards that haven’t the integrity to use their own name while at the same time assailing mine. (and Dr. Lewis) – Anthony Watts
Do some research says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Anthony, you are one of the few that demand accountability. Keep it up. I understand that there are some who may face severe sanctions ( a sociological term ) for commenting here, but the more of us who can take the heat, the better.
What if the increase in ocean and atmospheric CO2 was not originating in the atmosphere?
What if the earth’s core is responsible for all of so called man caused climate change?
What if the warmist and their patrons are stuck in little boxes and can not admit that the 4.5 BILLION year old earth has gone through many cooling and warming cycles far more extreme than the current condition?
What if we really are not running out of oil (which is NOT a fossil fuel BTW)?
What if the EARTH and the Universe is much more capable at correcting itself than any efforts man can make?
What if most people do not want to be slaves of the Ruling Class Tax Man?
What if those of you that do not know what I am saying here actually try to learn something new?
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/sustainable_oil_production.html
Just one belated comment on Joe Romm, as discussed by Anthony and R.S.Brown. Consider the fact that Romm does not give Lewis the full Romm treatment, which of course would involve labeling him “anti-science”. He surely realizes that that would be too much. But from Romm’s point of view, not being able to use his biggest-caliber rhetorical weapons must be frustrating.
THE OBSERVED TEMPERATURE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
Here is the observed global mean temperature trend for 90-years from 1910 to 2000:
http://bit.ly/bylFMq
1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 2000 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot.
http://bit.ly/aDni90
In conclusion, man-made global warming is not supported by the observed data.
According to the data, the effect of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is NIL.
Dave Springer yes you are correct but be careful with wikipedia. Much of the chemistry, physics and climate science reported on wikipedia is full of errors. Climate scientists funded by the government edit the wiki contributions on global warming too. Hawkings is interesting but we have never observed loss of energy or matter.
The hockey stick curve is impossible.
I am disappointed that this story is not getting the publicity that it deserves.
WUWT readers can help here.
Go to Google and copy this into the search box:
“American Physical Society”
including the double quotes, and press Enter.
Click on any results about Hal Lewis’s resignation and have a look at them.
Do not click on any other search results.
Do not click on beforeitsnews.com
There are plenty of stories in the first 20 or so pages of results.
Do it now! I shall be able to tell if you have done this!
jaymann;
Like giving orders, do we? My misspelled response: “Git stoffed!”
Glad you liked this tip, Anthony.
I was surprised how few UK media outlets took up this story. I read The Times and Daily Mail, and not a whisper of it. I only found out because I read the Daily Express for some reason !!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204880/Global-warming-is-the-greatest-fraud-in-60-years-
For non UK readers, the Daily Express is not a highly regarded newspaper, it being owned by a pawn baron. However, it has never liked the AGW bandwagon/fraud.
.
Speaking of Wiki, the character assassination of Prof. Lewis has already begun, courtesy of a certain Mr. William Connolley. Since Wiki appear to be or are unable to restrain his activities, perhaps the good Professor’s lawyers should …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harold_Lewis
A snapshot of Mr. Connolley’s past exploits
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
Pointman
It warms my heart that such a notable and respected personality is willing to stand up and point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
I hope that more and more will follow his lead and that the trickle becomes a torrent and then a flood.
Its damaging to Science in general and Climate Science in particular.
My worry is that, somewhere behind the fabrications, obfuscurations and religous zeal there exists real climate issues that we can do something about, real science that has been interdicted and real talents that have been blighted.
Here is the official response to Hal Lewis’ resignation letter, from the APS itself:
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
.
It says:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.
.
Look like William Connolley is back at work… (founding contributor to RealClimate)
Let the character assasination of any scientist that speaks out, begin…
See the discussion at wikipedia, around HAL LEWIS….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harold_Lewis
Either the stories about Connolley being banned from Wiki were a pure disinformation tactic, or Wikipedia allows its oversight committees absolutely no real authority.
I suspect the former.
Jacob Mack says:
October 13, 2010 at 1:19 am
Wikipedia can be downright awful where there is any opportunity to slant it to suit liberal agenda items. In anything relatively apolitical it’s a wonderful resource but like any encyclopedia it isn’t considered authoritative. Links to citations, references, and external reading are usually provided but unfortunately many of those links are behind paywalls or refer to texts which otherwise aren’t readily available. Google books often has authoritative references for free. Science can be a difficult business for those of us who don’t have university access to the literature but it’s sure become a lot less difficult in the past 10 years.
re; Hawkings
Black holes themselves are theoretical constructs where their actual existence borders on dogmatic belief and where arguing otherwise can be damaging to reputations and careers. Arxiv.org is usually where you find the more heretical views w/regard to theoretical physics.
Hawkings didn’t argue that matter or energy was lost. Theoretically everthing that enters a black hole eventually emerges through Hawking radiation which is basically (in my way of understanding) quantum tunneling through the event horizon. He argued that the radiation from the evaporting black hole carried no information with it not even in principle. On the face of it that violates time symmetry – if you have complete information about the state of any isolated system you can (again only in principle) calculate all past and future states. Time itself then appears to be a mere accounting artifact rather than some fundmental aspect of the universe and where the so-called arrow of time is a byproduct of the thermodynamic law of entropy.
This of course has deep philosophical and religious implications and boils down to the question of whether the universe is deterministic or not. The usual argument against determinism is quantum uncertainty but personally I’m a fan of hidden variables in that matter and pretty much follow along with Einstein’s famous statement “God doesn’t play at dice with the universe”. That view was decidedly biased when the non-zero cosmological constant was recently given a new lease on life with the discovery that the exapansion of the universe is accelerating in defiance of gravity and the concept of dark energy was born. While it is thought that so-called dark energy, which is calculated to account for some 70% of the “stuff” that makes up the universe, is homogenous and vanishingly dilute in any smaller volumes, what if it isn’t perfectly homogenous? How much dark energy would it take to influence the outcome of a wave function collapse? We don’t have a theory of quantum gravity to say nothing of a quantum theory of dark energy. I take it all with a grain of salt given the incomplete state of physics and I usually object anytime quantum mechanics enters a discussion of atmospheric physics as it all happens on scales well beyond the quantum domain and rather in the domain of classical mechanics which is tried, true, and more intuitively understood by the lay person.
re; APS statement
“Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming;”
My emphasis. This where they go wrong. The earth is currently in an ice age and we are presently in a brief respite called an interglacial period. In their own words no “reputable scientist” disputes the ice age. Therefore it is more accurate and far less misleading to say that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere works against the global cooling we should expect as the interglacial period (which is already long in tooth) wraps up and ice age conditions return.
Why should this none story be pushed so hard. As I see it, an old man resigns in a huff. This happens every day. I’m an old man and I’ve done it a couple of times. What does this have to do with anything about AGW?
Nice!
One stone in the pond of truth as many more should follow. Hang on Alarmist the water is about to get choppy. >:)
When asked in 1968 about his papers, Halsaid the were ” lost in moving or discarded”.
Read all about it at aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html.
Dr. Phil is now out shopping to replace an exploded irony meter.
REPLY: Well in fairness, lugging around tons of dead tree format is a lot easier to justify deletion or recycling of than deleting emails and data off a server, which requires no heavy lifting when moving. It goes to motive.
BTW an internet search reveals that you have been active in supporting a wind farm in Nova Scotia. Is that what you do, or are you employed as a professional complainer by some NGO? – Anthony
Seriously, what an incredible non-story of propaganda hype tacked to the top by Mr. Watts.
Does anyone here have a link to thoughtful, detailed dissenting argument published by Hal Lewis regarding of the actual science outlined in the IPPC WG1 report?
As best I can tell, Mr. Lewis has never bothered to gain a understanding of even the most fundamental understanding of climate science. For example, Mr. lewis has stated his belief that warming is the predominant driver for increased atmospheric CO2 levels, this when CO2 isotope and carbon sink analysis completely destroy the validity of that opinion. He doesn’t appear to understand the basics of climate forcings and feedbacks. Do you think that might be one reason his “Topical Group on Climate Science” was rebuffed?
Again, I’d appreciate link to thoughtful, detailed climate science-based arguments published by Hal Lewis … I haven’t found any.
I do not ascribe to GW, if indeed real, being caused by human activity. As an engineer-scientist, I don’t believe the so-called data either. Nevertheless, I like to ask the question, “So what should the real temperature of the earth be?” That really should end the debate.
Correction to previous post: should be “subscribe to” not “ascribe to”.
——————
Jack Greer,
Good comment. I think you will very soon see some joint statements by Lewis, Lindzen, Dyson and others regarding the substantive issues they have with consensus/accepted climate science. Try these links to contact them:
I certainly look forward to substance, finally from a more open forum than the APS.
Certainly, Lewis has improved his situation.
John
“”” Daniel Denham says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:05 am
I do not ascribe to GW, if indeed real, being caused by human activity. As an engineer-scientist, I don’t believe the so-called data either. Nevertheless, I like to ask the question, “So what should the real temperature of the earth be?” That really should end the debate.
Daniel Denham says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:18 am
Correction to previous post: should be “subscribe to” not “ascribe to”. “””
Time to hit the Dictionary Daniel. Your second attempt was a big improvement over the first; but if you read your statement carefully in the second version, I think you will still find it is still an awkward wording that you could say some other way.
But hey; I’m not being critical. We don’t do untypos and the like here; too many important things to talk about to be pit nicky about “Anguished English. ”
And for the legal disclaimer; that is actually the exact title of one of the 768 books on the English language authored by Dr Richard Lederer; the world’s foremost authority on the English Language. And for the Trivial pursuits enthusiasts; he is also the father of both Howard Lederer, and Annie Duke, who are two of the most successful professional Poker players on the circuit. Anie Duke of course was the lady who simply kicked Joan Rivers arse on that rigged Donald Trump sorcerer’s apprentice T&V show.
To Richard M
I’m not going to get into an off topic discussion of Miskolczi. I will just note that if you read around (start with Dr Roy Spencer) you may come to the opinion that M is not the devastating critique you think it is.
To George E Smith
Again I’m not straying into the off topic foul zone. I will just note your opening comments;
And then there is the real problem of what does a warmer atmosphere have to do with climate and in particular catastrophic climate change.
Quite alot actually.
A warmer atmosphere means that there is more energy in the system, this will force a change in climate. Whether that will be catastrophic will depend on climate sensitivity.
I note that neither of you have anything to say regarding my ‘on topic’ comments but don’t worry I won’t interpret your silence as consent 🙂
John Whitman says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
Jack Greer,
Good comment. I think you will very soon see some joint statements by Lewis, Lindzen, Dyson and others regarding the substantive issues they have with consensus/accepted climate science. Try these links to contact them:
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1687-professor-hal-lewis-joins-the-gwpf.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html
I certainly look forward to substance, finally from a more open forum than the APS.
Certainly, Lewis has improved his situation.
John
—————–
Yes, John, the focus s/b on honest discussion of the science, the data, the probability of determinations, the likely impacts over time, etc.
What I asked for was links that would give any indication that Hal Lewis has any depth of understanding climate science work to-date, and the specific related physics thereof …
What you provided are links to the exercise of political/propaganda opportunism – an effort to seize upon political energy that can be distorted to purpose. Any old neural surgeon could shake his fist at the sky damning “the sham that is global warming” … that w/b surgeon might have the same level of understanding of the actual science to-date as Lewis, as best I can tell – he’d just be more difficult to propagandize.
Do you have any links to thoughtful, detailed climate science-based arguments published by Hal Lewis? … I haven’t found any.
—————-
marco,
So, based on your above comment, I did go back to see your comments on this thread. What exactly were the ‘on topic’ comments that you imply are worthy our attention and that we are running from in our most cowardly fashion? Us lowly commenter types may have missed your self-important missives.
Restate please, if you condescend to do so.
NOTE: Lewis and some current APS members have responded to the APS press release (that responded to the Lewis resignation letter). It may help you a little.
This time I think the revolution will be televised. : )
John
Doing a google I see that now that Hal Lewis Resignation has reached 902,000
Reading with interest @danielkozub I decided to see what google had to say about him, Daniel Kozub has just finished 22 years as a NAFTA bus driver, well, intelligent critics, in this modern world have to hide somewhere.
Dr. Lewis, all the very best.
“”” Ralph says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:58 am
Here is the official response to Hal Lewis’ resignation letter, from the APS itself:
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
.
………………………………
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. “””””
Well Ralph, I am not personally a member of the APS; I do belong to the Optical Society of America; which I believe is a part of another Physics Organisation , The American Institute of Physics, in fact OSA was one of the founding groups of AIP.
But I am quite sure that I am a reputable scientist; and I go to great lengths to see that I maintain the utmost in scientific integrity in everything I do; either on or off the job. So I think I fall within the category that the APS leadership is referring to; they did not limit their class to only APS members.
So to their declaration of what “”” virtually all reputable scientists agree “”” to should apply to me too. So as to:-
“Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity ” Yes we exhale it; in my case about 56 times every minute. Also irrelevent since it is the extent to which humans contribute CO2 that ismaybe (or maybe not) important. Hey we also lower the albedo of the planet, thereby contributing to global warming, each time we pick a white cauiliflower from the field too.
“Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming ” Well the use of the word “excellent” is quite unscientific; and factually incorrect. CO2 is actually a very selective infra-red absorber; and specifically it is a quite poor absorber at a wavelength of 10.1 microns; which should be the spectral peak of the emission from the earth at its global mean Temperature of 288 K or +15 deg C. But yes I agree that CO2 does absorb some infrared radiation. I also agree that to that extent it does contribute to warming of the atmosphere; and to the extent that the atmosphere IS a part of the globe; then ergo it contributes to warming of a thermal capacity minor part of the globe. Again literally true but is it significant when other GHGs such as H2O do the same thing; and (are) much more prevalent that CO2 (in the case of H2O).
Anyone looking at the total absorption spectrum of H2O and CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE who judged that it was the CO2 that was “an excellent infrared absorber”, would hardly be making an unbiassed judgement; even ignoring the relative abundance of those two permanent components of the atmosphere.
Then we have :-
” The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years. ”
Utter nonsense; CO2 is a permanent part of the atmosphere and has been for at least 600 million years; and it comes and goes on a regular basis; in fact every single year in the arctic around the north pole the atmospheric CO2 drops by 18 ppm in just 5 months; and at that rate of removal, the present 110 ppm excess over the supposedly stable background level of 280 ppm would be removed in about 2 1/2 years, or 99% removal in 12 1/2 years if it followed a normal single time constant exponential decay. And also irrelevent since the warming effect of CO2 (if any) depends on the amount of CO2 not on how long a particular serial numbered molecule has been in the atmosphere; their absorption properties do not degrade ( or enhance) over time.
So the position statement of the APS is both quite unscientific and factually debatable; and moreover does not even address the extent to which CO2 might affect climate or GW or whatever they call it now.
So the APS should not be issuing such trash in the guise of science in the name of their membership; at least not without a secret ballot poll of their entire mebership; and they should certainly not expand their assertians to reputable scientists like me; who are not among their membership; and in my case would never be; given their churlish behavior.
And they should stop with this trash talk; that somebody who is studying the genetic makeup of some pre-cambrian trilobite or what have you, qualifies as an authentic “Climate Scientist”; but someone who is simply a Physicist or a Physical Chemist; but has not authored a paper on the effects of “Oxygen isotope variations in the Anthropogenic Climate Change Contribution of Carbon Dioxide.” is an ignoramus duffer who should not comment on matters he has not presented a PhD thesis on.
Hey climate is about physics and physical chemistry, primarily (probably biology as well) but it is NOT about how many different species of Trilobites flourished in what geological era.
And for the legal disclaimer; I’m NOT bashing trilobite hunters; and they ARE authentic scientists (wish I could go hunt trilobites); but whether the earth is racing to climatic disaster or not (it isn’t) will not depend on trilobites or any other ancient critters however cute they might have been.
By the way; as an aside to the above rant. Does anybody ever bother to look up the word “virtual” in a dictionary to see what it REALLY means.
I believe it is more likely to mean UNREAL, than MOST.
So “virtually all” is a damn silly way to say “nearly all”; and it even takes up more space and letters. So if you mean most or nearly all, say so, and cut with the virtually BS.
In Optics “virtual” means in fact quite unreal !
“”” Brian H says:
October 12, 2010 at 4:26 pm
G.E. Smith;
The warmists and lukewarmists have never taken on and answered this seminal cite:
Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a science:
“Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture [= preliminary guess without evidence, which may lead to a hypothesis with pass-fail proposals, which may eventually qualify as a theory], which may be proved or disproved already [= previously] in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical text-book on this subject [95]. [In] 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth’s climates is definitively unmeasurable [98].”
—
“Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.
My bolding.
So it cedes far too much to acknowledge that CO2 participates in any postulated or speculated GH mechanism. Lukewarmists’ tepid thinking notwithstanding. “””
Brian; I am not sure exactly what of the above is your words and what is something of someone else’s that you are citing.
I am quite familiar with the “free downloadable” paper that you mentioned. I’m less than certain that the paper makes the case that its argumentative title proclaims.
As for me; I’m quite certain (to my own satisfaction) that CO2 is at best playing only a minor role in earth climate. I could go on and conjecture that if there was NO CO2 in the earth atmosphere; or shall we say no more than 389.62 parts per Billion (0.15 or today’s level), that earth’s temperature would not be 30 deg C cooler than it is now; as one would compute from the IPCC asserted value of 3.0 +/-50% value for the “Climate Sensitivity” as defined (apparently) by the late Dr Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. I’d even venture a wild guess that it would be barely distinguishable from what the temperatures are today. It would be somewhat more arid and less cloudiness; but quite comfortable and liveable.
IT’S THE WATER !!
But to deny that CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation around 15 microns wavelength, and in the lower atmosphere thermalizes that energy in molecular collisions; is not something I could; or would defend.
Very little, actually. The “more energy” in the atmosphere is trivial noise compared to the heat energy fluctuations of the oceans and crust.
Wow. And now Mr. Watts imploring his followers to propagate the resignation letter of Mr. Lewis’ – a man who apparently knows little about climate science – to disingenuously elevated him as a “devastating authoritative voice” to denounce climate science. I mean, he is a physicist after all, right? {roll eyes} Never let a weak but exploitable opportunity to distort perceptions of casual observers pass.
Propaganda at its worst. Very, very, very sad.
REPLY: Yes, it’s terribly sad that physicists (Astronomers even) have something to say about climate science and are cited worldwide:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
Of that other physicists (Geologists even) are cited for hockey sticks by the IPCC:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
Why it’s just terrible how so many people listen to physicists who expound on climate change. – Anthony
/sarc
*********
REPLY by Mr. Watts: Yes, it’s terribly sad that physicists (Astronomers even) have something to say about climate science and are cited worldwide:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
Of that other physicists (Geologists even) are cited for hockey sticks by the IPCC:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
Why it’s just terrible how so many people listen to physicists who expound on climate change. – Anthony
*********
Well that was an unexpected pointless response … comparing scientists who’ve made climate research their profession with a scientist who doesn’t seem to know much about climate science.
I’ve asked multiple times, but I’ll ask you, Anthony … Do you have any links to thoughtful, detailed climate science-based arguments published by Hal Lewis? … I haven’t found a single one. I doubt you’ll find any, but that certainly won’t stop you from trying to distort his relevance to the climate science debate.
REPLY: Actually the response was quite pointed, you just don’t like the point. Al Gore has no scientific papers on climate published, yet millions listen to him. George Monbiot has no scientific climate papers published, neither does Bill McKibben, or eco snuff film producer Franny Armstrong, yet thousands hang on their every word and are moved to action. It wouldn’t matter what was presented, you’d ignore it and call it propaganda just as you did above. You don’t like Dr. Lewis, you think he’s irrelevant. We get it. It won’t change how I present Dr. Lewis here. – Anthony
George E. Smith says:
October 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm
No problems with your comment, except for:
in fact every single year in the arctic around the north pole the atmospheric CO2 drops by 18 ppm in just 5 months; and at that rate of removal, the present 110 ppm excess over the supposedly stable background level of 280 ppm would be removed in about 2 1/2 years, or 99% removal in 12 1/2 years if it followed a normal single time constant exponential decay.
The comparison doesn’t hold: the 18 ppmv variability in the Arctic is mainly from growing vegetation in spring/summer and almost all comes back by vegetation decay in fall/winter, blowing in from the mid-latitudes via the Ferrel cells, as the d13C levels show. The net effect over a year is only some 1.5 GtC net uptake by vegetation (of the 110 GtC excess). Together with the 2.4 GtC going into the deep oceans, that makes some 4 GtC net uptake per year, about halve the human emissions. Thus it will take a little longer than 2.5 years half life time…
Far less than the hundreds of years the APS (and the IPCC) claims, which anyway is only relevant for a fraction of the total excess and if you burn all reachable oil and lost of coal.
But some 40 years half life time for the bulk of the excess will do the job, see the calculation of Peter Dietze at:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
**********
REPLY by Mr. Watts: Actually the response was quite pointed, you just don’t like the point. Al Gore has no scientific papers on climate published, yet millions listen to him. George Monbiot has no scientific climate papers published, neither does Bill McKibben, or eco snuff film producer Franny Armstrong, yet thousands hang on their every word and are moved to action. It wouldn’t matter what was presented, you’d ignore it and call it propaganda just as you did above. You don’t like Dr. Lewis, you think he’s irrelevant. We get it. It won’t change how I present Dr. Lewis here. – Anthony
**********
So, no, you have zero links that supports Hal Lewis having any significant knowledge base in the climate science field – now there’s a surprise.
I’m talking about the science, Anthony, not political/propaganda mouthpieces on either side. You’re not really interested in the science itself. Your primary interest is in “opportunities” to exploit – that is your chosen profession.
REPLY: You are entitled to your opinion, even if wrong. You assume that people such as Dr. Lewis aren’t capable of having a valid opinion on climate science because their chosen profession went in a different path. Dr. Hansen was an Astronomer before he started publishing on climate, yet nobody stood up then and said “sir, you’ve only published in astronomy, so your opinion is invalid”. Einstein hadn’t published much either, and worked as patent clerk at the time. Yes, by all means ignore that fellow.
Mr. Greer. your opinion is the height of arrogance and your own actions show that you really aren’t interested in the science, you only want to denigrate Dr. Lewis because you disagree with him. It is an oh-so-typical and transparent MO. Here’s the deal, what Dr. Lewis has said is spreading, resonating, and being repeated worldwide. Tough noogies that you don’t like it. – Anthony
“”” Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm
George E. Smith says:
October 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm
No problems with your comment, except for:
in fact every single year in the arctic around the north pole the atmospheric CO2 drops by 18 ppm in just 5 months; and at that rate of removal, the present 110 ppm excess over the supposedly stable background level of 280 ppm would be removed in about 2 1/2 years, or 99% removal in 12 1/2 years if it followed a normal single time constant exponential decay.
The comparison doesn’t hold: the 18 ppmv variability in the Arctic is mainly from growing vegetation in spring/summer and almost all comes back by vegetation decay in fall/winter, blowing in from the mid-latitudes via the Ferrel cells, as the d13C levels show. “””
What Comparison Ferdinand; I made no comparisons with anything. I merely stated the incontrovertible fact that in the arctic; and I also added “around the North Pole” ; which arguably would apply to even just the Arctic ocean; On which I wasn’t aware that plants even grew; 18 ppm of CO2 is removed in just 5 months; and it takes the remaining 7 months of the year to return. That is NOT indicative of any 40 year decay time constant.
Now I’m not aware that plants whether growing in the subarctic on land or in the arctic ocean on ice or water, are able to distinguish between human introduced CO2 and Nature introduced CO2; and decide to decay with a 40 year Time constant in one case and a 2 1/2 year time cnstant in the other. Surely the isotopic difference in carbon doesn’t alter the decay time constant by such a large amount.
In any case it is irrelevent; the CO2 is in the atmosphere permanently; just as the water vapor is; and how long it takes to switch one molecule for an exact copy is of no consequence.
************
REPLY By Mr. Watts: You are entitled to your opinion, even if wrong. You assume that people such as Dr. Lewis aren’t capable of having a valid opinion on climate science because their chosen profession went in a different path. Dr. Hansen was an Astronomer before he started publishing on climate, yet nobody stood up then and said “sir, you’ve only published in astronomy, so your opinion is invalid”. Einstein hadn’t published much either, and worked as patent clerk at the time. Yes, by all means ignore that fellow.
Mr. Greer. your opinion is the height of arrogance and your own actions show that you really aren’t interested in the science, you only want to denigrate Dr. Lewis because you disagree with him. It is an oh-so-typical and transparent MO. Here’s the deal, what Dr. Lewis has said is spreading, resonating, and being repeated worldwide. Tough noogies that you don’t like it. – Anthony
************
There is no detailed offered by Mr. Lewis to support his position – there is no basis to believe Dr. Lewis is capable of having a valid opinion on climate science – that’s my point. Lewis hasn’t published and/or spoken anything of depth on the subject. Lewis’ shallow public comments on the science itself, in fact, lead one to believe he’s quite incapable of a valid scientific opinion re: climate.
As to the “spreading, resonating, and being repeated worldwide” part, well, that’s your job – that’s the purpose of this site – recognize the exploitable narrative, formulate a hyped message, then blast it into the echo chamber. That’s how you earn your living – warp public opinion to align with your benefactors.
However inconsistent with your objectives, Anthony, the actual science should always be the focus … so if you do find true climate science-based arguments offered by Hal Lewis, please share. Until then you’re effectively pushing the podiatrist’s opinion on brain surgery … not particularly relevant.
REPLY: like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, even if wrong. – Anthony
@ Anthony..
With all due respect Mr. Watts (and I dip my toe into this discussion with fear and loathing) but I must say that in what I have read so far, I haven’t seen anyone suggest that Hal Lewis is not welcome to his opinion(s) on anything including AGW.
But you are presenting his resignation from APS as representing a huge blow to the science of AGW, as if he has much more than an opinion – informed or otherwise. Mr. Greer is quite correct to point out that he (Mr. Greer) is not talking about ‘political propaganda mouthpieces’ but about serious published scientists and if we are to take Hal Lewis’ resignation as representing anything that we should pay attention to then you should be able to point us to recent research that he has undertaken.
I’m confident that if George Monbiot quit the Guardian in a huff or if Bill Mckibbon stopped writing books in a fit of pique, you would not be trumpeting it as a death blow to AGW.
REPLY: If they quit like Dr. Lewis did, saying their parent organization was corrupt, and the science was faulty – you betcha I’d write about it. And to point, “death blow” is your phrase, not mine. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
My point is this: Dr. Lewis APS resignation letter is comparable to the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. Like Lewis, he made a stand against the consensus of the time. That set off “The Reformation”:
http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/reformation/reformers/luther.shtml
– Anthony
Alan Caruba on Hal Lewis and WUWT:
From desperate housewives to desperate climate liars
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-desperate-housewives-to-desperate.html
George E. Smith says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I was only saying that you can’t use the seasonal drop and increase of CO2 to deduce any thing about the real time constant of removing an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of the drop in CO2 in spring is by the sudden growth of leaves in the moderate forests. That is measured midst these forests by tall towers. And confirmed by a huge change in d13C levels (up in summer, down in winter). The air of the mid-latitudes is moved up and comes down again near the Arctic via the Ferrel cells.
The oceans react the other way out: increasing emissions of the warming mid-latitude oceans. In the NH with far more land, vegetation is by far dominant, in the SH there is hardly an amplitude visible.
That all says nothing about how fast an extra amount of CO2 is removed, as most the CO2 which was removed in spring/summer returns in fall/winter at about the same rate. The real removal rate is the difference between removal and release at the end of the year, thus after a full seasonal cycle. And that is about 4 GtC, which implies an excess removal half life time of about 40 years.
Re: Dr. Lewis’ publication record in climate science
From the APS response:
So it appears that the officers that wrote the APS statement on climate and the majority of the membership don’t have a publishing record in climate research.
And yet the argument seems to be that Professor Lewis shouldn’t be taken seriously because he hasn’t published on climate.
I know what that argument would be called:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
Mr. Watts..
Point taken..you are correct to point out that ‘death blow’ is my phrase and not yours. Although in terms of hyperbole I think death blow is fairly benign if one puts it up against comparing this resignation with Marten Luther’s nailing up of his 95 theses.
That being said it seems to me that the consensus of the present time is one of ‘business as usual’ inwhich the clergy would be represented by the fossil fuel interests who – like the church of Luther’s time – have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Further, Mr. Lewis’ characterization of APS as corrupt and his statement that the science is faulty is still only an opinion: an opinion that is perhaps more considered than my own, but still only an opinion and therefore I still do not see how his resignation warrants comparison with Luther and the Reformation.
REPLY: Thank you for a reasoned discourse. Martin Luther’s discourse was only an “opinion” at the time. It was the act of defiance that elevated it, just as Dr. Lewis has done – Anthony
John says:
Re: Dr. Lewis’ publication record in climate science
From the APS response:
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding.
Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
So it appears that the officers that wrote the APS statement on climate and the majority of the membership don’t have a publishing record in climate research.
And yet the argument seems to be that Professor Lewis shouldn’t be taken seriously because he hasn’t published on climate.
I know what that argument would be called:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
So now we are paying attention not only to a resignation that means little but it is a resignation from a society that means little as neither the one resigning nor the organization from which he is resigning have any publishing record in climate research. Who’s on 1st?
Anthony:
I would agree that an opinion, forcefully put forward can indeed set in motion huge changes in society. I guess where we disagree is about who is the church and who is Martin in the present context.
I would suggest that it would be more correct to assign the Martin role to someone like James Hansen who has been attempting to nail his thesis to the door of the status quo for some thirty years. It seems apparent to me that the overwhelming consensus of our time (and I’m not speaking to the ‘scientific consensus’ regarding
AGW) is the paradigm of free market capitalism and its attendent mantra of constant and infinite growth and technological innovation.
This, to my mind, is the ‘church’ that the Martin Luthers of AGW are up against. I feel that you present a mirror image of this picture with the characters reversed.
Is this a mis-representation of your position?
“I have decided to resign my membership of the American Chemical Society this year because of dogmatic warmist editorials in its weekly magazaine, C&EN”
Ulick Stafford, I am joining you. I have been member of ACS for 28 years, but am no longer proud to say so.
OT:
Standing Up Against the Oil Lobby, in California and Beyond
by Al Gore
Chairman, Current TV
Posted: October 12, 2010 05:36 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com//al-gore/standing-up-against-the-o_b_760172.html
Steve Mennie says:
October 13, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Well, whoever wrote this entry thinks what scientific socieities say is important even though most of these organizations have a very small percentage of members who have published in climate science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Of course, you are free to edit the entry.
Keep us posted on how that goes.
John/CA;
Huffington? Gore? Standing up? I doubt they can.
The problem may simply be that our priorities lean too much to physics and not enough to philosophy.
All this didn’t happen suddenly, or in a vacuum. It was well under way when the academic community of North America threatened a boycott of Velikovsky’s publisher over the content of “Worlds in Collision” half a century ago. Academia had already lost its integrity at that point, and become a priesthood enforcing orthodoxy by any means instead of a community dedicated to the search for knowledge.
And so now, when we need reliable scientific insight more desperately than ever, we have public relations contests determining public policy on environmental issues critical to the survival of our society.
Oakden Wolf says:
October 8, 2010 at 10:00 pm
(quoting from an APS statement)
“Since 1996, demand for oil and natural gas has continued to grow with the expansion and globalization of the world’s economy. In addition, our nation’s dependence on imported energy has increased, and the effects of burning fossil fuels on the global environment are becoming a major concern. The Council of the American Physical Society believes that the use of renewable energy sources, the adoption of new ways of producing and using fossil fuels, increased consideration of safe and cost effective uses of nuclear power, and the introduction of energy-efficient technologies can, over time, promote the United States’ energy security and reduce stress on the world’s environment.”
In my opinion, the APS position is mostly about money. But long-term energy security is a secondary consideration, as Oakden points out. Most physical scientists believe that the Earth’s supply of cheaply-extracted CONG (coal, oil, natural gas) is finite.
Side note. I’m agnostic about the Abiogenic Petroleum Hypothesis (APH). On the one hand, some evidence is consistent with the hypothesis. Example: the frequent occurrence of adamantane derivatives (aka ‘diamondoids’) in petroleum. H/t to Louis Hissink. On the other hand, two deep boreholes in central Sweden (in the Siljan Ring) failed to provide strong evidence for the late Thomas Gold’s variation on the APH theme.
Anyway, even if the APH is true, it begs the question: At our current rates of CONG consumption, will we run out before Sol goes red giant, and toasts our cookies? Even if the answer is no, it’s obvious to me that we’ll need to spend more money in order to drill deeper. And even with improved extraction and refining technology, CONG will become more expensive. And that means lower living standards for most people in the developed countries.
Yes, increased use of nuclear power–including thorium/U233 reactors–will soften the blow. But we’ll still need a convenient energy storage medium for our cars, which we’ll be driving considerably less frequently. And petrol substitutes don’t come cheap.
Yes, driving a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle as a second car for local shopping, and for local commuting, is a viable option for some families right now. And when petrol becomes prohibitively expensive, more communities will be willing to decrease their surface-street speed limits to 25 mph, the safe upper limit for NEVs. On the other hand, Tesla Motors has yet to demonstrate that their faster, longer-range products are more than play-toys for rich people, who want to enhance their images as Environmentalists.
As an outsider, my take on the APS position is that
1. Many physicists are deeply concerned (as am I) about the energy situation in the future.
2. The believe (as do I) that we’ll experience a softer landing if we get proactive now.
3. They believe that most non-scientists are too bloody stupid to see beyond their own noses.
4. There are considerable overlaps between proposed solutions for energy security and for the CAGW ‘problem’.
In my opinion, these four factors explain the willingness of many physicists–who should know better–to ‘go with the flow’.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm
That all says nothing about how fast an extra amount of CO2 is removed, as most the CO2 which was removed in spring/summer returns in fall/winter at about the same rate. The real removal rate is the difference between removal and release at the end of the year, thus after a full seasonal cycle. And that is about 4 GtC, which implies an excess removal half life time of about 40 years.
Well, with a one sigma error on this of ,lets say,ten years it is a consistent number with the claims that certainly it is not hundreds of years.
Actually it is a number consistent with new tree growth establishing itself. In the 1960’s a pine forest burned down in my area and it is now having some mature trees.
If, due to warming, the habitat expands to higher in the mountains and more north, the time scale is not bad.
Larry Fields :
October 13, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I am curious. Are you a physicist?
More curious, if so, have you read the physics justification of the AR4 report? It should raise the hackles of any real physicist.
1. Many physicists are deeply concerned (as am I) about the energy situation in the future.
2. The believe (as do I) that we’ll experience a softer landing if we get proactive now.
3. They believe that most non-scientists are too bloody stupid to see beyond their own noses.
4. There are considerable overlaps between proposed solutions for energy security and for the CAGW ‘problem’.
In my opinion, these four factors explain the willingness of many physicists–who should know better–to ‘go with the flow’.
Those physicists have not read the AR4 physics justification report.
Also one reason physicists go with the flow is that good ones trust in the integrity of other physicists, and by extension of other scientists. Each real physicist would never dream of fudging data, using uncalibrated proxies, spaghetti graphs, gross oversimplifications, etc. So they cannot imagine that if, for example, a low temperature chemists came up with a new formula that only works near kelvin zero, it would be a suspect formula. They would trust his scientific integrity. That is the problem with the APS bulk physicists. They have not read the AR4 physics justification to see what a jumble it is.
I, as many physicists, until challenged to read AR4, thought that there was truth in AGW because climatologists, who should be the experts, said so.
The scales fell from my eyes three years ago, and since then, in my small way, I try to lecture in my area and open more peoples eyes.
Your 4th point also is shaky in logic. Eliminating 4/5ths of the human race would have the same effect on the energy consumption. Should one espouse the logic?
There seem to be a greater correlation between the amount of funding for climate research and the amount of hysterical statements about global warming than there is between the rise in temperature and human CO2-emissions.
anna v says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Larry Fields :
October 13, 2010 at 10:20 pm
“I am curious. Are you a physicist?
More curious, if so, have you read the physics justification of the AR4 report? It should raise the hackles of any real physicist.”
No, my academic background is in analytical chemistry. I’m also an amateur mathematician. And no, I have not read the AR4 physics justification report.
from my earlier posting:
4. There are considerable overlaps between proposed solutions for energy security and for the CAGW ‘problem’.
“Your 4th point also is shaky in logic. Eliminating 4/5ths of the human race would have the same effect on the energy consumption. Should one espouse the logic?”
Sorry, I should have expressed myself more clearly. In my 4th point, I was not advocating anything in particular. My main purpose in listing the 4 points was to make an educated guess at what rank-and-file APS physicists are thinking. I was playing amateur psychologist.
I’m not a Free-Market Fundamentalist. And I don’t think that having a carefully-crafted energy policy is necessarily a bad idea. But some of the particulars in the proposed energy policies of others are bad ideas. I was thinking of ETSs (emissions trading schemes), outlawing incandescent light bulbs, and building poorly-sited wind turbines that operate on average at only 5% of their capacity.
About eliminating 4/5 of the human race. No, I’m not in favor of that. But John Holdren, Obama’s ha-ha science adviser, may be comfortable with the idea. He’s a population-control extremist, and he scares the bejesus out of me. Apparently Holdren cannot comprehend the theory of the Demographic Transition. And that’s surprising, because his academic background was in physics, before he went crackers. Until recently, I’d assumed that there were no dummies in that scientific discipline.
By the way Anna, I always appreciate your opinions. I wish that more physicists were like you and the late Richard Feynman.
To John Whitman
I have no where implied that my comments are worthy of attention. However if someone replies to them then I think that we can take that as evidence that the commenter thought them worthy (for good or ill).
I simply noted in my follow up that what I was being asked to comment on was off topic.
This is a blog that invites comments. I have done so. I hardly see contributing a dissenting opinion to be self important or my disagreement with Anthony Watts to be equivalent to levelling a charge of cowardice.
You ask;
Restate please, if you condescend to do so.
May I suggest you use the scroll bar, it would save both of us time.
A Recipe for Disaster:
I hope I am not alone in seeing a pattern emerging here:
*The Economy is in shambles world wide and getting worse (we are not in a recovery),
*Climatology/Environmentalism is spiraling down into zealotry and politics,
*Physics has devolved into celebrity and paradox and is indistinguishable from science ficion.
What connects these three observations? 1. Greed, 2. Hubris, and most important…
3. Bad math and silly computer modeling.
Greed and Hubris are part of the human condition, we will not escape them as long as we are human, but we do need to keep them under better control. Vigilance is the cost of freedom and clean living.
Bad math and silly computer modeling are sadly at the root of the collapse of our economies, our climate prediciton and energy policies, and our comprehension of the universe through physics. The financial experts and world leaders, the climatologists and environmentalists, the physicists and mathematicians , have ALL been drinking from the same trough of delusion. They all want to believe that computer modeled reality is “real”, even when they don’t fully understand what they are modeling. They look at the output of their computer models and simulations as equivalent to reality, granting them godlike predictive powers and insight over the earth. Problem is, take ANY computer simulation with many many varibles and terms, all of which are not known, all of which are not accurate, now run a calculation, take the results and use them to run another calcuation, and another , and another, ad infinitum….
Take the computer forcasted and terribly flaky results , fold in the Hubris and Greed, disgard any self restraint, and VOILA!! What you get is what we got. Disaster. Both real and imagined.
Observation should always trump prediction, not the other way around.
Larry Fields says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:20 pm
” Most physical scientists believe that the Earth’s supply of cheaply-extracted CONG (coal, oil, natural gas) is finite. ”
If they do (which I doubt) then they should learn some economics as well as physics. With increasing demand, increasing capital formation and increasing knowledge, the cost of energy falls; it has done so consistently in the past and will continue to do so in the future. There is no shortage of energy; in the Solar System alone trillions of times more power than we currently use is continuously going to waste, thrown away into space, yet is readily captureable; even little Earth receives around ten thousand times our present usage. So unless the ecofascists and other socialist thugs destroy the world economy, energy will be even cheaper in the future than it is today (and that is very cheap by historical standards, relative to disposable income). With cheap energy the supply of hydrocarbon fuels becomes unlimited; we can easily produce as much as we like, whether we extract it them from beneath the surface or just make them from CO2 and water. Oil is not finite in any economically relevant way. It will become gradually more affordable, not less.
Anthony: “Dr. Lewis APS resignation letter is comparable to the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. ”
You’re drawing a very long bow here, Anthony. Martin Luther was steeped in the theological and doctrinal issues in dispute, having given them long thought and study. He was an inveterate pampleteer and debater, pouring a huge amount of intellectual energy into his battles.
And he was young — still in his mid-thirties, so he was still physically vigorous and his thinking was new and fresh and grew with his own maturity.
By contrast, Prof. Lewis is an outsider to climate science, an oberver rather than a participant. His letter deals with arcane technicalities, and consists of worn bromides and tired rhetoric. I doubt that Lewis is going to be leading a movement any time soon.
REPLY: I get a chuckle out of the fact that the only people complaining most strongly about this analogy are the defenders of the AGW faith. – Anthony
Time to move on. Get this off the lead area.
————
Marco,
Thank you for your reply.
I understand your ‘scroll bar’ comment to mean that you haven’t any comments that you think were important for us to comment on, much less important enough to restate them for us. OK, that ends that.
Certainly, this is an open place, thanks to Anthony. But I will also say thanks to you for pointing that out to me. : )
Back to the thrust of my original comment to you; I think you implied commenters here were cowards because we did not respond to what you imply are your important comments. I think each individual here gets to decide if your comments are important to our knowledge base and our time. If nobody responded then it indicates perhaps that your comments were actually not that important wrt our knowledge base and time. It is the free market of ideas . . . . I love it.
John
Brian,
Having actually done a little research into it, I can tell you that you’re wrong. Mirroring the amount of substantiation in your post and Lewis’ letter, no citing or referencing is necessary in order for my opinion to be sound. The APS likewise rebuts this contention (see the update).
Oops, I cited something to back up what I said. I’ll leave it to you to judge whether that disqualifies the opinion.
Anthony’s analogy of Luther’s actions wrt to Dr. Lewis’ action has expanded in the comments.
So, this unreligious heathen (me) embedded by birth into a religious family, religious community, dominantly religious country and dominantly religious globe quickly went and got out my trusty “A History of Christianity” by Paul Johnson.
I reread the section on “The Third Force (1500-1648)” which describes the rise of the Protestant sects of Christianity in opposition to the Western European monopoly on Christianity held by the Roman Catholic Church.
In a religious sense, Anthony’s analogy to Lewis’ science situation is way off the target.
In a historical sense, with some literary license, Anthony’s analogy does give an impressive mental image of protester (Lewis) taking on the dominating juggernaut (APS); just as Luther (Protestant) taking on the total society role of the Roman Catholic Church (of Western Europe). Anthony’s analogy does have a sense to it that is similar to the underdog versus the powerful, or of David versus Goliath.
So, Anthony, you got everyone’s attention . . . . : )
John
Kudos to the good doctor. Resigning from such an historic organization for his reasons is no trivial move. I see the pain of his separation.
Having bothered to read dozens of technical papers (yes, I have no life) on the subject of ‘climate change’ I can see why he left. There is so much garbage being put out as ‘science’ that as a Scientist, many of the papers don’t even pass the giggle test, let alone serious review. He is right that this is the biggest fraud perpetrated, ever. and serious public policy is being shaped on it. I am frightened for my children. I can only hope that he, and others like him can shine the light of real science on this fraud and expose it for all to see.
“REPLY: I get a chuckle out of the fact that the only people complaining most strongly about this analogy are the defenders of the AGW faith. – Anthony”
You’ll remember from your religious history that Luther preached justificatiion by faith alone. No works necessary. So in that sense, I guess the analogy works.
“”” Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm
George E. Smith says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I was only saying that you can’t use the seasonal drop and increase of CO2 to deduce any thing about the real time constant of removing an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of the drop in CO2 in spring is by the sudden growth of leaves in the moderate forests. That is measured midst these forests by tall towers. And confirmed by a huge change in d13C levels (up in summer, down in winter). The air of the mid-latitudes is moved up and comes down again near the Arctic via the Ferrel cells.
The oceans react the other way out: increasing emissions of the warming mid-latitude oceans. In the NH with far more land, vegetation is by far dominant, in the SH there is hardly an amplitude visible.
That all says nothing about how fast an extra amount of CO2 is removed, as most the CO2 which was removed in spring/summer returns in fall/winter at about the same rate. The real removal rate is the difference between removal and release at the end of the year, thus after a full seasonal cycle. And that is about 4 GtC, which implies an excess removal half life time of about 40 years. “””
Ferdinand; if I turn on the faucet to my bath, and start to fill it with water, (full bore), the water level will rise at some rate, depending on the water flow rate, and the area of the bath . If I then Turn off the Faucet and pull the drain plug, the water level will fall, at a rate depending on the diameter of the drain, and the areqa of the bath, and in this case on the water depth, and it would tend to fall in a normal exponential decay fashion assuming the outlet flow rate was proportional to the head.
So now if I have the bath full, and I leave the faucet on, and also pull the drain plug, the water level will now change (either up or down) but at a much slower rate than before, until it reaches some equlibrium level where the head determined outflow rate, matches the faucet input rate.
But even though the water level change rate has dropped significantly, the time constant of the removal mechanism has NOT changed.
Yes I know that the growth cycle ebbs and flows with the seasons. Antarctica doesn’t see much CO2 cycle, because basically nothing much happens at the south pole that involves CO2, and the Antarctic coast where the southern ocean ends, is quite remote, and its Temperature doesn’t change a whole lot, to alter the CO2 take up rate.
In the arctic; you have in addition to the tundra and arboreal forest growth and decay, the CO2 cycle with the ocean water due to the melt and refreeze of thewater; that we watch like a religious ritual every year.
If I follow your approach, I conclude that the closer we come to exactly balancing the CO2 ebb anbd flow; lets say we return it to 350 ppm as the zealots want; and keep it there, then by your analuysis, the decay time constant or “residence time” for CO2 would become infinite.
I’m saying that is a wrong conclusion because if we turned off the faucet (shut down ALL economic enterprise), the CO2 would plummet with something akin to the 2 1/2 year Time constant, that the principle removal mechanisms (the dr5ain plug) seem to exhibit; it won’t stick around for any 200 years.
UPS just delivered Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” so I will be offline more that on for next couple of days. : )
John
Every year we see a different piece of new information showing this planet is warming .
This year you can now circumnavigate the artic without needing an ice breaker
See http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-crew-circles-north-pole-summer.html
“Less than 10 years ago the first steel-hulled sailboat managed to get through just one of the passages, and 100 years ago, a circumnavigation would have taken six years,” the “Northern Passage” crew said in a statement. ”
In addition to the warming , the CO2 is also changing the acidity ( or alkilinity of the oceans).
The idea that Hal Lewis is some sort of Matin Luther is just twaddle .
George E. Smith says:
October 14, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Different mechanisms at work: there is not one drain and not one faucet, but several of different diameter and pressure. The seasonal drain is a very big one, pumping all water out of your bath up to a reservoir on the next floor. Open the big valve from the reservoir and your bath is filled within minutes. That all is only recycled water. Nothing happens with the water level in the bath (or the reservoir) after a full cycle.
The real extra fill comes from a small faucet (human emissions) and the real removal is a small drain at the side, which acts only if the bath is filled above a certain level (the equilibrium level). Both mechamisms: cycle and extra fill/drain work independent of each other.
If I follow your approach, I conclude that the closer we come to exactly balancing the CO2 ebb anbd flow; lets say we return it to 350 ppm as the zealots want; and keep it there, then by your analuysis, the decay time constant or “residence time” for CO2 would become infinite.
Not at all, as the emissions increased slightly exponential over the years, the increase in the atmosphere increased in ratio with the emissions at about 55% of the emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
but also the sink rate increased in ratio, simply because the increase in the atmosphere caused more pressure difference between atmosphere pCO2 and ocean pCO2 (and plant alveoles). The only possibility to maintain a constant CO2 level in the atmosphere is by constant emissions. The height of the emissions doesn’t influence the decay rate, only the height of the CO2 level at which the new equilibrium will be reached. If you double the emissions, the difference between CO2 level and equilibrium CO2 level will double too. In all cases the decay rate is about 40 years half life time.
I’m saying that is a wrong conclusion because if we turned off the faucet (shut down ALL economic enterprise), the CO2 would plummet with something akin to the 2 1/2 year Time constant, that the principle removal mechanisms (the drain plug) seem to exhibit; it won’t stick around for any 200 years.
If the leaves are on the stem and the summer growth is nearing its end, CO2 levels will increase again in the NH, whatever the human output, only dropping with a half life time of about 40 years in the main sinks, whatever the current level. If the human emissions equal the sink rate, then the CO2 level will stay even, with larger emissions we will see an increase, with lower emissions that will be a drop.
PeteM;
CO2 is irrelevant to long-term warming trends.
Lewis’ brainpower, knowledge base, and attention to the issues are so far in advance of yours that your comment doesn’t even rise to the level of risible.
John M says:
October 13, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Steve Mennie says:
October 13, 2010 at 4:35 pm
So now we are paying attention not only to a resignation that means little but it is a resignation from a society that means little as neither the one resigning nor the organization from which he is resigning have any publishing record in climate research. Who’s on 1st?
Well, whoever wrote this entry thinks what scientific socieities say is important even though most of these organizations have a very small percentage of members who have published in climate science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Of course, you are free to edit the entry.
Keep us posted on how that goes.
I would agree that what scientific societies say vis a vis climate change is important..but you made me think for a moment when you mentioned how few of the members of APS are engaged in climate research and further how few of the members of any of these societies are thus engaged. If this is indeed the case, then how much weight can we give to any of the endorsements of the soundness of climate research from scientific societies around the globe? Just wondering…
Brian H says:
October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm
John/CA;
Huffington? Gore? Standing up? I doubt they can.
=====
Brian,
They are so asleep it would take a cattle prod to wake them up but tragically they seem to prefer fantasy to fact. Our “huddled masses yearning to breath free” have been drinking the Party Cool Aid and turned green.
The educational system isn’t the greatest here so I guess you get what you pay for.
Brian H
“CO2 is irrelevant to long-term warming trends.
Lewis’ brainpower, knowledge base, and attention to the issues are so far in advance of yours that your comment doesn’t even rise to the level of risible.”
Wrong , and well , debatebly wrong.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucf3BWLrw3Y&fs=1&hl=en_US]
For the record, same subject described by Dr Timothy Ball
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28741
PeteM, you might want to disconnect the north west passage from AGW, the nice russians, and bear in mind atomic ice breakers were thin on the ground in 1939, helped the Nazi raider (small armed merchant ship disguised so as to dupe other ships) into the pacific then (1939) I have seen nothing to connect climate with CO2, I have seen the most alarming pollution (video and pictures) from the countries who are benifitting from the civilised countries killing off their manufacturing with carbon credits and sending the factories to the unregulated `China and India. S there is scant evidence that CO2 is anything other than benificial but the scam perpetrated in the whored name of science is causing horrific harm to the world and the economies of the duped countries.
Everyone here is shouting “RA RA” but what about the environment?
Even if pollution doesn’t cause global warming does that make it okay?
Where’s the integrity in trying to stop measures to mitigate the trashing of our planet?
Xamana
What measures would you have us take, at what cost, and why?
Xamana says on October 14, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Which measures are those?
CO2, for example, is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient in plant growth.
Richard Sharpe says:
October 14, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Xamana says on October 14, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Everyone here is shouting “RA RA” but what about the environment?
Even if pollution doesn’t cause global warming does that make it okay?
Where’s the integrity in trying to stop measures to mitigate the trashing of our planet?
Which measures are those?
CO2, for example, is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient in plant growth.
Richard…H2O is an essential engredient in plant growth as well…this doesn’t mean that all plants flourish under water.
Xamana. where is the benefit for the environment in bankrupting the west and sending all production to very dirty factories in India and China?? The whole carbon scam is disgusting and the only supporters are demented or corrupt. Here in Ontario the power is called “hydro” carried over “hydro lines” in Orillia all our power comes from water so why am I paying surcharges, called “environmental” to subsidise solar and wind generation? Fraud is the only answer and I would like to see the fraudsters hung at least.
Paul Birch says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:21 am
Larry Fields says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I wrote:
”Most physical scientists believe that the Earth’s supply of cheaply-extracted CONG (coal, oil, natural gas) is finite. ”
Paul wrote:
“If they do (which I doubt) then they should learn some economics as well as physics.”
Paul, it’s logic-check time.
•The Earth is finite.
•Therefore any subset of the Earth is finite.
•The Earth’s supply of cheaply-extracted CONG (coal, oil, natural gas) is a subset of the Earth.
•Therefore the Earth’s supply of cheaply-extracted CONG is finite.
If you like, we could compare estimates of extraction rates with reasonable estimates of replenishment rates, but that’s not what your posting was about.
Anyway, thank you. That was fun! It’s not every day that I get to use a syllogism in an argument. One thing that physicists understand, but which a few of economists apparently cannot fathom, is that physics is the basis of economics. To butcher a famous old saying: Man lives not by Smithian slogans alone.
Many of the comments on this thread amount to a conspiracy theory, that climatologists are scamming the public. The argument is that all of the scientists are engaging in dishonest practices just to collect a paycheck. Why stop at scientists. There are a lot of professionals who rely on the trust of the public to collect a paycheck. Doctors, lawyers, auto repair services all have expertise that the public relies on. There are very few who are scamming the public, and none are perfect, but that doesn’t make all of their work useless and invalid.
Many posters believe that the existence of scientists who disagree with AGW is proof somehow that the theory is incorrect. Neither of these propositions makes any sense to me. There will always be dissenters to an established physical theory, because a certain fraction of the population will always be dissenters.
In addition, many of the early dissenters were politically motivated, and were paid by right wing organizations, funded by big corporations, who are against government regulations of any kind. One famous physicist, Fred Seitz, who opposed AGW, also took money from the cigarette companies to debunk the idea that smoking was injurious to health. Even today, there are a number of organizations , like Heartland Institute, who pay physicists to write papers against the idea of AGW, because they oppose government regulation of any kind. Even certain right wing members of the US Congress, are involved in this effort. In addition these organizations engage in petty harrassment against certain scientists, like Michael Mann, whose reactions, as exposed in the infamous emails was understandably human and bitter.
A large number of foolish arguments are made in an attempt to debunk the idea of AGW. Some amount to a denial that the fundamental accepted physics regarding absorption and radiation by molecules is correct; and that the greenhouse gas theory is wrong. Others claim that human activity is not even causing an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone trained in the fundamentals of science, can see that these arguments are totally wrong, if they have any objectivity at all.
There are more subtle technical arguments about clouds, and the lack of agreement of the models etc. . Most of the people making those arguments don’t really have the expertise to make them based on real knowledge.
The comments by most of the posters on this thread amount to mindless cheerleading for the side they believe in.
Steve Mennie says on October 14, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Well, Steve, thank you for your trite reply. I notice you didn’t bother to answer the question.
Do you happen to know at what level CO2 starts to become poisonous to any plants? Do you happen to know at what level CO2 becomes too dangerous for humans?
Oh, and by the way, how much carbon would re-greening North Africa suck out of the atmosphere?
Larry;
Just knew you’d jump on that purist definition of “finite” But for all practical purposes the supply is unlimited. Energy ALWAYS gets cheaper. Even Obongo can’t repeal that.
Richard;
Not hypothetical!
eadler says:
October 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm
The comments by most of the posters on this thread amount to mindless cheerleading for the side they believe in.
I assume you are at least speaking about yourself, especially given your preceding “reasoning” where you have not even touched any of the significant “sceptical” criticisms which are routinely put forth at WUWT, including above. So just who else are you talking about?
The warming trend alleged does not have nearly enough data to support it. Wikipedia entries on global warming is largely controlled by climate scientists who do not understand physics. I do not mean quantum mechanics or some fancy eigen function based mathematics of no relevance either. Of course they do try and get fancy with all that math without real evidence. Show me how it is indisputable.
eadler Oct 14th 2010 8:01
It’s obvious that any objective person would confirm your well reasoned argument by simply looking at the numerous comments on this site.
I would add another point. I believe that many of the comments here are using a deliberate language technique of associating any anti-AGW comment with ‘good’ and any pro-AGW with ‘bad’ . By hyping up the readers emotional reaction for anti-AGW comments it allows irrational and false arguments to be slipped into the discussion.
Any propogandist can make an argument along the lines ‘you are a fool and don’t you know that CO2 can’t affect the climate’ or ‘we are wasting gazillions of dollars,yen,roubles on a total sham in a well know conspiracy of millions of scientists trained in secret AGW camps and CO2 is obviously beneficial to humanity all of the time ‘ . This is a bit more than cheerleading , its closer to deliberate manipulative mis-selling.
LazyTeenager says:
October 12, 2010 at 5:29 am
So where do these trillions of dollars actually come from? The total USA climate change budget appears to be 2000 milion dollars per year.
To get trillions you need to have climate change activities on the same scale as military expenditures and that ain’t happening. Somebody has been lying to the old guy.
P.S. I do not approve of exploiting a 90 year old by waving him around like a propaganda flag to be shot at. Let him enjoy his grumpy old guy years in peace.
The old guy is actually pretty up to date. Global nominal GDP is estimated by IMF to be $62 trillion in 2010 and it is projected to rise to $82 trillion during the next five years.
On the other hand according to IPCC AR4 cost of mitigation is expected to be several percent of GDP (up to 5.5% by 2050, depending on scenario).
I suppose you can handle percents at least as proficiently as the old guy and if you actually do the math you’ll see the situation can adequately be described as trillions being at stake.
You should also take into account the fact it is virtually certain the IPCC is underestimating costs and that the money to be redistributed by government policies would be much more than actual losses. Quite a financial incentive, one would say.
Therefore if somebody has been lying to the old guy it was either the IMF or the IPCC (or both). And they’re not lying just to him, but to all of us, which is exactly the kind of problem that made the old guy jump. Because it is not he alone who is being exploited, but you as well.
Larry Fields says:
October 14, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I wrote: “Most physical scientists believe that the Earth’s supply of cheaply-extracted CONG (coal, oil, natural gas) is finite. ”
“Paul, it’s logic-check time.”
Had you removed your Malthusian blinkers for a moment you might have been able to understand my comment, and restrain yourself from coming back with an invalid pseudo-syllogism. The store or stock of a certain good might be finite, but the supply is not finite if the stock can be replenished indefinitely. Hydrocarbon fuels can be (so long as we have the energy) so their supply is not finite. Supply is an economic measure of availability, not a physical measure of quantity like mass (note the “cheaply extracted” tag you yourself added). As I stated previously: oil is not finite in any economically relevant way.
For me the big clue to the lies is the cure the rich and powerful come up with, this does not help the situation one bit but bankrupts the west and gives our wealth to China who use it to produce more CO2. Kindly tell me how that is not enough proof of the scam?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28728
eh?
wassat?
Darkinbad the Brightdayler says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:27 am
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28728
eh?
wassat?
____________________________________________________________
Seems like utterly unsubstanciated rubbish to me.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206
I doubt if it will get into a serious newspaper, yet alone a serious journal after peer review, but there again you really can’t tell these days.
Chris Edwards says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:08 am
“For me the big clue to the lies is the cure the rich and powerful come up with, this does not help the situation one bit but bankrupts the west and gives our wealth to China who use it to produce more CO2. Kindly tell me how that is not enough proof of the scam?”
There are no facts or logic behind this statement, which is simply a statement of a conspiracy theory.
In fact the Chinese are leaders in alternative energy technology, despite the fact that they burn a lot of coal to power their industry.
The rich and powerful in the US are funding organizations like the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute, and are pouring tens of millions into the Republican campaign chest. They have been doing this for years. The Republicans have been the principle political opponents of the scientific theories behind global warming, and originated the propaganda campaign opposing the idea that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels.
The people driving opposition to AGW are taking advantage of human nature, which involves a reluctance to take action on problems that appear to be abstract and are theorized to occur in the future. Some misguided individuals in the scientific community who need to be mavericks, like Hal Lewis, are adding to this propaganda, playing the martyr to the cause of truth. In my opinion, the opposition to AGW is an army of cracked pots, led on by scoundrels shilling for the big energy and coal companies, for example, Tim Ball.
PeteM says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:07 am
eadler Oct 14th 2010 8:01
It’s obvious that any objective person would confirm your well reasoned argument by simply looking at the numerous comments on this site.
You seem to confuse the slew of logical fallacies eadler used including Straw Man, ad Hominem, ad Populum, and Poisoning the Well, to name just a few for a “well reasoned argument”, a common mistake of CAGW/CC/CD Believers.
You then compound your error by adding further straw man arguments.
The following statement for example uses both the Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments: “Any propogandist can make an argument along the lines ‘you are a fool and don’t you know that CO2 controls our climate”?
See how that works?
By the way, good luck with you and your cohorts’ cheerleading of a dying Belief system. I guess it must support your world view or something, so is hard to give up. Maybe they should start a 12-step support group for you folks: Warmaholics Anonymous, perhaps.
Just a suggestion:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/10/15/who-you-calling-a-fraud/
REPLY: Thanks Keith, I sent a note to Andy Revkin last Friday. It took him a week of digging to get the results he wanted. – Anthony
I see Revkin went straight into ad hominem mode and dug up previous statements from Prof. Lewis followed by a an attack from a third party on the Professor’s credibility. Nice one Andy!
It seems official now. RC allows none of my poost through now.
Revkin’s position and responses skate around the core issue that Lewis attempts to highlight: that using the primitive tools to hand to justify massive and draconian choking of the world’s energy usage is fraudulent, both scientifically and politically. The evident motivation for the fraud is control over trillions of dollars of redirected resources; potential and actual skimming of billions off that flow is not difficult.
Steve Mennie says:
October 14, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Richard Sharpe says:
October 14, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Xamana says on October 14, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Everyone here is shouting “RA RA” but what about the environment?
Even if pollution doesn’t cause global warming does that make it okay?
Where’s the integrity in trying to stop measures to mitigate the trashing of our planet?
Which measures are those?
CO2, for example, is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient in plant growth.
Richard…H2O is an essential engredient in plant growth as well…this doesn’t mean that all plants flourish under water.
Richard..I suppose my ‘trite’ response was to your equally trite statement that CO2 was and essential ingredient etc…This statement is irrelevant to any discussion of CO2 forcing of climate..or pretty much anything else..Its the equivalent of saying that because one aspirin is good for paint relief that taking 10 would be ten times better..
Oops…that should, of course, be pain relief..although it may work for paint relief as well
Rob Potter says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
I see Revkin went straight into ad hominem mode and dug up previous statements from Prof. Lewis followed by a an attack from a third party on the Professor’s credibility. Nice one Andy!
I’m kinda slow in most ways so I may have missed something..but how is referring to someone’s previous statements on the subject in question (Hall Lewis’ opinions on AGW) an example of ad hominem?
I don’t know this fellow Revkin, but, has he lost his mind?! That was a complete non-sequitor at the end of his “reply” by quoting David Ropeik. Hal Lewis is showing no fear. He accuses his opponents of suppressing inquiry into fraud masquerading as fact. He “feels” betrayed. The fact of fraud and the concomitant feeling of betrayal does not necessarily produce fear in a mature human. So, Ropeik is wrong.
As far as I’m concerned, Revkin is quoting some pseudo-scientific quack named Ropeik whose statements are so insipid that they can be debunked using the very thing he’s commenting on. Neuroscience says nothing about “facts” because we have no idea how a human represents a “fact”, much less have a firm definition of the notion of “fact”. As you might expect, our knowledge of “feelings” about facts or anything else is currently in its very beginnings. What a joke this Ropeik is!! I’ll bet he’s on a lecture circuit as a motivational speaker or some such nonsense.
UPDATE3: Andrew Revkin, after a week (I sent him this story last Friday) of digging around to get just the right rebuttal, responds here at Dot Earth.
In the link there is this comment on the change of attitude of prof.
Lewis :
What a difference a couple of decades can make.
The answer is what I have discussed before: physicists are socially naive people. Having a strict training in the scientific method which is continually reinforced during the career years, ( each talk in a conference is like a thesis examination) they cannot easily imagine that in other so called “scientific” disciplines things are not just like in their own microcosm. He accepted on trust the peer reviewed results of the “climatologists” of that time, and included in good faith their conclusions in his risk assessments.
The difference the couple of decades have made are:
money, money, money.
Suddenly climate “science” was big business eating billions from the available funds for research ( money1), and suddenly politicians smelled money and put a large price tag and generated pyramid schemes (EU carbon exchange) that made politicians and others millionaires (money 2), and the specter of taxing the air one breathes came around the corner (money 3). The Ottoman called it head tax.
This onslaught on the pocketbook made even physicists look up and smell fish.
Asking the world to commit economic hara kiri is sure to get even a physicist’s attention.
Once one starts looking into the details of the (in) famous GCMs and their physics justification, which probably did not exist before the IPCC reports a decade or so ago, the precarious and arbitrary foundations become evident. One cannot justify such drastic measures on such flimsy “science”.
The change should be no surprise.
A further thought..(as I stated previously, I’m rather slow) If referring to a person’s previous statements about a subject is equivalent to an ad hominem attack, how would you defend Attorney General Cuccinelli’s desire to refer to ten years of M. Mann’s emails?
Just read Revkin’s ridiculous ‘reposte’ and was quite impressed with Lewis’ responses to his emails.
But I keep thinking – with some of the so called core science (I am thinking physics and absorption of radiation here) being allegedly agreed, wouldn’t it be an extremely useful piece of scientific literature for the likes of the APS or the RS to chair such a production, warts and all?
If the APS, RS and all the other societies who have issued climate ‘statements’ and taken a stance on behalf of their ‘members’ (which by the way – do not necessarily constitute the majority of practising scientists in my view, many for example, do not take an active role in their ‘societies’) – could at least agree ‘base’ levels of understanding – at least they could perhaps produce more genuinely scientifically based statements instead of wishy washy acceptance ‘speeches’ of an alleged concensus based science (which in reality is the acceptance of the concensus by its review panel!).
It would be beneficial to pro- and anti- GW sides to have a real (perhaps even incontrovertible?) ‘reference’ document from which research and debate could move forwards. Why, if the core science is so settled, is such a document unavailable? (at least to my current knowledge)
Yes, I know the IPCC reports are supposed to be almost ‘reference’ material – but we all know how wrong their stuff can be! The trouble with any overview (such as IPCC docs) is that the errors and uncertainties are not fully disclosed – if they were (in a proper scientific manner) the final conclusions would necessarily be full of mights maybes and low or high possibilities, etc – which when you start to ‘add’ or ‘multiply’ them together – well, you’d just become a ‘don’t know’ voter!
Is it really beyond the realms of possibilty that the real Independent scientific community out there could ‘get it together’ without all this pro and anti stance and associated BS?
If this were a murder mystery video, you’d want to rewind and restart at the beginning to see where we lost the plot!
Why do we continue to give a hot d#$m what Revkin thinks/says? I thought it was beyond obvious during the climategate fallout he was not not really concerned about truth and certainly not a moderate on the subject. He was just being professionally cordial to us all along…
That post by “eadler” goes into my records as a perfect example of denial.
Chinese are leading the way in what now???
It’s all the Republicans? Really? Basically, all you’ve managed to say is that only Republicans are smart enough to see through a completely transparent scam… something I’m sure many Democrats here would disagree with.
Your outlook is so completely backward it reads like a parody of reality… Brilliant!
Re update #3, Revkin’s summation is to agree with Ropeik that “the way we perceive risk is affective” (sic), a combination both of the facts and how those facts emotionally feel, and that Dr. Lewis is “demonstrating the very phenomenon he laments, letting his affect and worldviews interfere with taking all the reliable evidence into account in order to make a truly informed and fair judgment”.
This is just a pompous, elaborate and ungrammatical way of suggesting that Dr Lewis should have known better than let his emotions get in the way of “a truly informed and fair judgment” – that the consensus APS view was of course absolutely correct, reliable, beyond criticism, etc. It is a simple ad hominem attack, made all the worse for the snide reference to emotionality. Why give it update status?
“scientists and researchers themselves regard peer review as providing ‘only a minimal assurance of quality'”
While that honest opinion from medical scientists and researchers is very refreshing compared to some scientists in other fields [climate science for instance], this “MedicalGate” is really disturbing news:
“Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269
MedicalGate: “From The Atlantic comes the story of John Ioannidis and his team of meta-researchers, who have studied the overall state of medical research and found it dangerously and widely lacking in trustworthiness. Even after filtering out the journalistic frippery and hyperbole, the story is pretty disturbing. Some points made in the article: even the most respected, widely accepted, peer-reviewed medical studies are all-too-often deeply flawed or outright wrong; when an error is brought to light and the conclusions publicly refuted, the erroneous conclusions often persist and are cited as valid for years, or even decades; scientists and researchers themselves regard peer review as providing ‘only a minimal assurance of quality’; and these shortcomings apply to medical research across the board, not just to blatantly self-serving pharmaceutical industry studies. The article concludes by saying, ‘Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor … I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life.’ I’ve always been somewhat suspicious of research findings, but before this article I had no idea just how prevalent untrustworthy results were.”
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/15/1934228/Meta-Research-Debunks-Medical-Study-Findings
I posted this as a comment on DotEarth. I don’t think it will make it through moderation there.
It’s funny. I read this and I don’t see it as a reasoned response. I see it as a knee jerk reaction.
As a supposed scientist, you must support your position, and you must supply the data used to obtain your conclusion, as well as the process you used to reach the conclusion.
If you don’t, how can any other scientist attempt to replicate what you have done, or determine if you have made any mistakes?
This is the best statement of Harold Lewis.
Anyone who claims to be able to predict the climate well enough to guide public policy is committing a fraud.
That’s exactly my point of view too. Climate simulation models have not been validated or calibrated to become reliable – perhaps they never will. Oh yes, in many cases simulations can give accurate predictions: http://www.simulia.com/products/abaqus_cfd.html after advanced fine-tuning of sensitive parameters.
Since the thermal transients in our climate have duration of decades and centuries, it may take a long time to tune a climate model. This means, of course, that Harold Lewis is perfectly right, and that it is impossible to tell whether climate models are right or wrong.
Then we are left with the null hypothesis. We cannot tell.
Steve Mennie says:
October 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“I’m kinda slow in most ways so I may have missed something..but how is referring to someone’s previous statements on the subject in question (Hall Lewis’ opinions on AGW) an example of ad hominem?”
Attacking the messenger and casting doubt on their veracity (by finding a previous contrary opinion) is the definition of ad hominem.
Digging around in someone’s published words to find a previous contrary statement does nothing to address the message and I thought Prof. Lewis rather nicely acknowledged that by not responding to Revkin’s questions on that point. In the face of increased knowledge and understanding, ‘facts’ change and it the real scientist who accepts that and changes their opinions.
Rob Potter says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
“I see Revkin went straight into ad hominem mode and dug up previous statements from Prof. Lewis followed by a an attack from a third party on the Professor’s credibility. Nice one Andy!”
The previous statements by Lewis affirmed the theory of AGW. Was Lewis committing fraud 20 years ago, influenced by big bucks that would flow from his position?
Lewis was attacking the integrity of the APS and the researchers who come to the conclusion that AGW is a real phenomenon and threatens human society with real harm. This is an ad hominem attack, accusing the people who run the APS of fraud. One ad hominem attack deserves another.
Lewis has some explaining to do, regarding why HE accuses people of dishonesty for taking a position that he previously held.
Professor Ropeik is an expert on what makes people mis-estimate risk, which is what appears to be happening in this case, based on Lewis dialog with Revkin. It is well understood that people are wired to discount the long term risk based on theory, and refuse to accept the costs of taking action that will mitigate risks that are long term.
It is pretty clear that your worldview is affecting your ability make a reasoned argument when it comes to AGW.
I have to take issue with those (e.g. Jack Greer) who sneer at contributors who may not have a string of publications in climate science. I respect the fact that the publication of peer reviewed papers is the currency of reputation in academia. It is by no means perfect, and there are thousands of emails that prove that, at least in the case of climate science, the process can be corrupt and some of the papers can be complete garbage.
Commercial or industrial scientists tend not to publish any papers, apart from patent specifications. They are judged more realistically on the real world success or failure of their claims. It is a pity that climate science frequently appears to show no connection with the real world at all and there seems to be little evidence of accountability; the reverse is true with clearly ridiculous, alarmist claims being published on a very frequent basis.
Most scientists with a general foundation in physics and chemistry are perfectly capable of reaching a valid judgement on many of the issues raised in the climate debate. Those skilled in mathematics and statistics are also well qualified to question climate science as the Hockey Stick Team knows to its cost.
If climate scientists are the only species on the planet that can have a valid view on this topic, then the human race might as well pack it in now.
@Larry Fields (and AGW Trolls)
Oil and Natural gas may in fact be UNLIMITED.
The USA (Dr. Gold) and the Russian’s have discovered ABIOTIC OIL – NOT derived from plant matter and the Russian’s especially have linked it to that great Nuclear Fission reactor running (4.5 BILLION years so far) at the earth’s core.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/sustainable_oil_production.html
Please do your research and try to understand what happens when you (all of you -AGW ) close your minds and buy the latest propaganda of the ruling class, brought to you via the whores of ‘science’, who have been bought and paid for.
I agree with Anthony as to the importance of Dr. Lewis actions… I would love to see more responsible Scientists act in a similar manner – unfortunately, the ruling class controls science.
I agree with Anthony as to the importance of Dr. Lewis actions… I would love to see more responsible Scientists act in a similar manner – unfortunately, the ruling class controls science.
A working Scientist is effectively nullified if he or she speaks against the ruling class, that is why they must wait till near the end of their career to speak up at all.
Dr. Lewis has chosen an exceptional method to make his points and Anthony has created a great forum to further the impact – Kudos to Anthony.
The piece by Andrew Revkin is a clasic propaganda piece, the style of which I recognize immediatly. It’s called “A, B, A, B, C C C”. Basically, you first present dueling arguments (it helps to make the argument you plan to show as wrong weak, by presenting one of the weaker or least credible proponants, or as here, simply editing out any of the strong arguments), by “showing both sides” (sort of), you establish your bona fides as a “balanced” reporter. By dancing around the subject, they leave the reader with the impression that the conclusion is not certain. Then, at the end, you present (TADA!) The Great Expert, who gives the opinion you want the people to believe. You present it last because, first, that increases the chance that they will actually remeber anything in this article, and second, you want to make it look like an actual conclusion, the “last word on the subject”.
When I see classic propaganda ploys being used by one side, I regard that side with EXTREME suspicion. You should to.
anna v says:
October 15, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“UPDATE3: Andrew Revkin, after a week (I sent him this story last Friday) of digging around to get just the right rebuttal, responds here at Dot Earth.
In the link there is this comment on the change of attitude of prof.
Lewis :
What a difference a couple of decades can make.
The answer is what I have discussed before: physicists are socially naive people. Having a strict training in the scientific method which is continually reinforced during the career years, ( each talk in a conference is like a thesis examination) they cannot easily imagine that in other so called “scientific” disciplines things are not just like in their own microcosm. He accepted on trust the peer reviewed results of the “climatologists” of that time, and included in good faith their conclusions in his risk assessments.
The difference the couple of decades have made are:
money, money, money.
Suddenly climate “science” was big business eating billions from the available funds for research ( money1), and suddenly politicians smelled money and put a large price tag and generated pyramid schemes (EU carbon exchange) that made politicians and others millionaires (money 2), and the specter of taxing the air one breathes came around the corner (money 3). The Ottoman called it head tax.
This onslaught on the pocketbook made even physicists look up and smell fish.
Asking the world to commit economic hara kiri is sure to get even a physicist’s attention.
Once one starts looking into the details of the (in) famous GCMs and their physics justification, which probably did not exist before the IPCC reports a decade or so ago, the precarious and arbitrary foundations become evident. One cannot justify such drastic measures on such flimsy “science”.
The change should be no surprise.”
I doubt that Lewis, who is a prominent man who worked in government could be described as “socially naive” 20 years ago when he wrote this book. He was an expert on Nuclear Winter, and said that the techniques used to evaluate this phenomenon appropriate to project the future of climate under the influence of CO2 emissions. His main accomplishments were service on government boards, according to his own biography. Characterizing him a socially naive is a non starter.
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Check out what he says:
http://books.google.com/books?id=noFcbT69gBEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=technological+risk+lewis+norton&source=bl&ots=uw2lmQyOc4&sig=lIa992e36pHkX35MqKjVk8knl2E&hl=en&ei=0Na3TOrcJsL48Aae-anrCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=greenhouse&f=false
In this book, he says that nuclear power is a cost effective low risk way to prevent global warming.
Your argument doesn’t make sense. It is a lame hypothesis for the purpose of rationalizing your position.
It is more likely that we are looking at some kind of age related dementia.
@ Abiotic Oil says:
October 15, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I don’t think Thomas Gold in his book “Deep Hot Biosphere” made the argument for infinite oil, merely more than would be expected from the “fossil fuel” model. Also, I very few people have read or understood his book.
“”” eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:57 am
Chris Edwards says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:08 am
“For me the big clue to the lies is the cure the rich and powerful come up with, this does not help the situation one bit but bankrupts the west and gives our wealth to China who use it to produce more CO2. Kindly tell me how that is not enough proof of the scam?”
There are no facts or logic behind this statement, which is simply a statement of a conspiracy theory.
In fact the Chinese are leaders in alternative energy technology, despite the fact that they burn a lot of coal to power their industry.
The rich and powerful in the US are funding organizations like the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute, and are pouring tens of millions into the Republican campaign chest. They have been doing this for years. The Republicans have been the principle political opponents of the scientific theories behind global warming, and originated the propaganda campaign opposing the idea that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels.
The people driving opposition to AGW are taking advantage of human nature, which involves a reluctance to take action on problems that appear to be abstract and are theorized to occur in the future. Some misguided individuals in the scientific community who need to be mavericks, like Hal Lewis, are adding to this propaganda, playing the martyr to the cause of truth. In my opinion, the opposition to AGW is an army of cracked pots, led on by scoundrels shilling for the big energy and coal companies, for example, Tim Ball. “””
What a wonderfully unassailable position you speak from eadler. Your entire essay rests on these simple words :- “”In my opinion “”
Wow what genius; that the whole thing can be settled by YOUR opinion.
By the way; when we cite YOUR opinion, as our authority for our future utterances in suppost of AGW ; now that you have enlightened all of us ignoramuses; just who should we say our authoritative source is ?
Well like all important information traded in the cause of the “public’s right to know”; among that information the public has the right to know, is simply the source of that important information.
Anonymous or incognito information is of about the same amount of credibility as if it were written in some mystery and equally unknown language; namely about zero.
As for your conclusion; the Republicans aren’t anywhere near smart enough to be the driving opposition to the AGW scam; any more than the Democrats are smart enough to support it.
Rob Potter says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“Steve Mennie says:
October 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“I’m kinda slow in most ways so I may have missed something..but how is referring to someone’s previous statements on the subject in question (Hall Lewis’ opinions on AGW) an example of ad hominem?”
Attacking the messenger and casting doubt on their veracity (by finding a previous contrary opinion) is the definition of ad hominem.
Digging around in someone’s published words to find a previous contrary statement does nothing to address the message and I thought Prof. Lewis rather nicely acknowledged that by not responding to Revkin’s questions on that point. In the face of increased knowledge and understanding, ‘facts’ change and it the real scientist who accepts that and changes their opinions.”
Sorry but your post is nonsense. Showing that a person’s position is inconsistent is not an ad hominem argument at all. Professor Lewis is calling the APS leadership dishonest, for adopting a position he himself held and promoted as correct 20 years ago in a book that he wrote. To Lewis, 20 years ago, the models were a convincing projection of damaging global warming and he endorsed them and suggested that nuclear power was an emissions free source of energy that could be used in place of the fossil fuels which were harming the climate of earth. Pointing this out is hardly making an ad hominem argument at all. Why doesn’t he accuse himself of dishonesty for his opinion on this 20 years ago?
Lewis is not a climate scientist, and wasn’t really much of a scientist in the first place.
I haven’t been able to find a paper with his name on it.
His claim to fame is service on government boards.
In dodging the question posed by Revkin, Lewis didn’t specify what the increased knowledge was that made him change his views. There is a higher burden on him to do so, since he has not published much science at all, and is not a climate scientist. It is not a praiseworthy stance at all.
He was never a leader in the field of physics, and maybe at age 87, he is trying to get himself a little bit of notoriety after being a non entity in the field of physics for 60+ years.
George E. Smith says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:41 pm
““”” eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:57 am
Chris Edwards says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:08 am
“For me the big clue to the lies is the cure the rich and powerful come up with, this does not help the situation one bit but bankrupts the west and gives our wealth to China who use it to produce more CO2. Kindly tell me how that is not enough proof of the scam?”
There are no facts or logic behind this statement, which is simply a statement of a conspiracy theory.
In fact the Chinese are leaders in alternative energy technology, despite the fact that they burn a lot of coal to power their industry.
The rich and powerful in the US are funding organizations like the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute, and are pouring tens of millions into the Republican campaign chest. They have been doing this for years. The Republicans have been the principle political opponents of the scientific theories behind global warming, and originated the propaganda campaign opposing the idea that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels.
The people driving opposition to AGW are taking advantage of human nature, which involves a reluctance to take action on problems that appear to be abstract and are theorized to occur in the future. Some misguided individuals in the scientific community who need to be mavericks, like Hal Lewis, are adding to this propaganda, playing the martyr to the cause of truth. In my opinion, the opposition to AGW is an army of cracked pots, led on by scoundrels shilling for the big energy and coal companies, for example, Tim Ball. “””
What a wonderfully unassailable position you speak from eadler. Your entire essay rests on these simple words :- “”In my opinion “”
Wow what genius; that the whole thing can be settled by YOUR opinion.
By the way; when we cite YOUR opinion, as our authority for our future utterances in suppost of AGW ; now that you have enlightened all of us ignoramuses; just who should we say our authoritative source is ?
Well like all important information traded in the cause of the “public’s right to know”; among that information the public has the right to know, is simply the source of that important information.
Anonymous or incognito information is of about the same amount of credibility as if it were written in some mystery and equally unknown language; namely about zero.
As for your conclusion; the Republicans aren’t anywhere near smart enough to be the driving opposition to the AGW scam; any more than the Democrats are smart enough to support it.”
The facts are that opposition to global warming in the 80’s, in the wake of the government commissions which projected that global warming due to CO2 would be a problem, did not originate in the scientific literature, but rather in publications by right wing think tanks. The right wing has funded and pushed the idea that global warming is a scam for over 25 years. Heartland Institute is only one example.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
This is not merely an opinion, which is what you appear to claim.
Republicans as you say are not smart about science, but they are good at propaganda and have a lot of money, and can afford to pay useful idiots. The public cannot tell the difference between sound science and crack pot theories. About 1/2 of the public does not accept the foundation of modern biology, the theory of evolution.
There are many crack pot theories associated with the so called skeptics that I have read over the past few years. Among them are that the claims that absorption by CO2 is already saturated, that clouds can be a climate forcing factor, that undersea volcanoes are responsible for the warming of the Arctic, it is all due to cosmic rays, and that there has been no warming trend. The arguments against AGW are just full of such pseudo science, and there is no shortage of uneducated fools who make them, and mislead the population that doesn’t know any better.
There are some aspects of global warming that are uncertain, especially the actions of clouds, but the data seems to show that the uncertainty is in how big the future temperature increases are going to be.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Lewis is not a climate scientist….
Are you? If not, then perhaps you should follow your own rule and not comment upon the merits of Climate Science’s CO2AGW “science”.
Nor do you seem to know any of the major critcisms of Climate Science advanced by the “sceptics”.
So just where does that leave you?
eadler, I suggest you take a look at the carbon credits and who has to buy them (in the UK hospitals???) and who gets given them, check out EUreferendum they carried a story (as did some daily national newspapers and a google search confirmed it) about a steel company in Wales who gave up pthe whole plant and closed down as they were just scrapimg by and the next financial year they were liable for millions of pounds worth of carbon credits, at the same time the famous train engineer from India opened basicly the same plant but recieved that many credits, get it yet, dont look at the huge scam, organised by the UN and yes Pachuri has his snout in this trough too, about the R12/R13 scam. Get your facts straight and see what is in front of your eyes, even if it offends you!
eadler; John Maynard Keynes once said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Many, many folks who are now climate skeptic/realists used to believe the Warmist nonsense. Another famous person said “The people will believe a big lie, but not a small lie.” The Warmist propaganda machine certainly did its job well, with the MSM all on board, and politicians, various and sundry rent-seeking NGO’s, politicians, and sadly, once-revered scientific organizations also falling in line. It is no surprise then, to anyone with half a brain anyway, that Mr. Lewis once believed it.
As for your pathetic statement Lewis is not a climate scientist, and wasn’t really much of a scientist in the first place you are simply using the logical fallacies of Appeal to Authority, as well as the ad Hominem form of argument you obviously so adore. Keep up the good work. Would you care for another shovel? That one looks worn.
Since we are now rehashing things Lewis once stated, here’s one from David Ropeik,
“Cultural Cognition — We choose positions that confirm the general view of the tribes with which we most strongly associate, to strengthen that tribe’s prominence, because as our tribe’s chances go, so go ours.”, from Solving Climae Change Is a Psychological Challenge–Some Solutions” article.
I wonder if Ropeik’s dynamic is also at work within the AGW crowd? Makes you say hmmmm.
Steve Mennie says:
“If referring to a person’s previous statements about a subject is equivalent to an ad hominem attack, how would you defend Attorney General Cuccinelli’s desire to refer to ten years of M. Mann’s emails?”
You need to get up to speed on the difference between a baseless ad-hom attack on a respected senior physicist for the purpose of deflecting this discussion away from what Dr Lewis was pointing out, and evidence being gathered in the investigation of possible crimes. Emails are evidence, therefore they are not ad hominem attacks. See the difference?
There is one common thread that runs through every alarmists ‘s ad hominem attack on every individual who points out wrongdoing, like Dr Lewis did, or who points out falsified CAGW hypotheses, like Lord Monckton does repeatedly, or Dr Curry, who is viewed as escaping from the CAGW reservation.
That increasingly common ad-hom attack is the Saul Alinsky tactic of singling out and demonizing the scientist du jour who dares to stand up and speak out. I note that the substantive issues are never discussed by the alarmist crowd — only the smear tactics are discussed.
I don’t understand how the resignation of an 87-year-old physicist proves that climate change is not happening? Could somebody explain this to me?
Matt says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I don’t understand how the resignation of an 87-year-old physicist proves that climate change is not happening? Could somebody explain this to me?
Climate change is always happening. But it’s Climate Science’s own “tenet” which claims it can’t be happening now unless fossil fuel CO2 is causing it. Pretty strange, eh?
So, there I am wondering why this is such a momentus, nee monumental, nee monsterous event?
One 87 year old person resigns from an organization.
Said individual did not even have their own wikipedia page prior to 10/12/2010.
I mean his whole life’s work boils down to a single resignation?
That’s the most important thing this individual has done in 87 years of living, a single resignation letter?
Meh.
“I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.”
==============================
Only a fool would disregard the implications of this statement.
The only reason this statement needed to be made, was global warming hysteria.
It is just this one thing, that is threatening to tear apart science.
A theory, a profitable theory, is still only a theory.
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:16 pm
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“Lewis is not a climate scientist….”
Are you? If not, then perhaps you should follow your own rule and not comment upon the merits of Climate Science’s CO2AGW “science”.
Nor do you seem to know any of the major critcisms of Climate Science advanced by the “sceptics”.
So just where does that leave you?”
Everyone one must make up one’s own mind on the basis of the sources of information available, and find a way to evaluate the quality and authority of the information one has, in order to form one’s opinion.
I have a strong background in Physics myself. I know enough to be dangerous, but I am going to rely on what is in the peer reviewed literature of climate science and the opinions of researchers to make up my mind. I understand what it takes to master a subject. There is no indication that Hal Lewis has demonstrated any mastery of climate science. Aside from his book on Nuclear Winter, there is no trace of any research that was performed by Hal Lewis anywhere on Google Scholar that I could discover.
Hal Lewis himself accepted the models developed by climate scientists about 20 years ago, when he said that Global Warming due to CO2 emissions was a threat.
I am familiar with the criticisms of AGW and have listed some of them in my previous posts. I don’t claim to have listed all of them, but have mentioned enough to show that I am familiar with both sides of the controversy.
EFS_Junior says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I mean his whole life’s work boils down to a single resignation?
That’s the most important thing this individual has done in 87 years of living, a single resignation letter?
You are the one who wants to know, so why don’t you try to find out? First see if you can figure out the significance of Lewis’ resignation, then report back. It’s pretty simple, but I’m betting you can’t.
Bruce Cobb says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:44 pm
“eadler; John Maynard Keynes once said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Many, many folks who are now climate skeptic/realists used to believe the Warmist nonsense. Another famous person said “The people will believe a big lie, but not a small lie.” The Warmist propaganda machine certainly did its job well, with the MSM all on board, and politicians, various and sundry rent-seeking NGO’s, politicians, and sadly, once-revered scientific organizations also falling in line. It is no surprise then, to anyone with half a brain anyway, that Mr. Lewis once believed it.
As for your pathetic statement Lewis is not a climate scientist, and wasn’t really much of a scientist in the first place you are simply using the logical fallacies of Appeal to Authority, as well as the ad Hominem form of argument you obviously so adore. Keep up the good work. Would you care for another shovel? That one looks worn.”
There are many posters on this thread who have heralded Lewis’ resignation as something significant, as if Lewis were a significant authority on physics or climate.
This is a claim that Lewis is some kind of authority who lends credence to the argument against AGW. These posters give Lewis the prestige to make a credible charge of fraud against the leadership of the AIP.
This amounts to an argument from authority that doesn’t stand up when you look at the career of Lewis, and the fact that 20 years ago, when he had all his marbles, he praised the very models that he now criticizes. I am NOT making an argument from authority, I am countering an argument from authority by pointing out that in the area of Climate Science Lewis has no standing, and he has not done any significant research in any field.
In fact the movement of global temperature since he wrote the book in which he praised the Climate Models made in the 90’s, has been consistent with the theory that the earth is warming due to CO2 emissions. Temperatures have gone up considerably since then.
The fact that some people have changed their minds about global warming is certainly not a convincing argument. A couple of recent surveys have shown that 97% of active climate science researchers accept AGW as a significant force driving climate.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:53 pm
There is no indication that Hal Lewis has demonstrated any mastery of climate science.
Lewis stated above, 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.
Lewis understands now that Climate Science is not real science. It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method.
So perhaps it’s now you who needs to catch up?
Chris Edwards says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“eadler, I suggest you take a look at the carbon credits and who has to buy them (in the UK hospitals???) and who gets given them, check out EUreferendum they carried a story (as did some daily national newspapers and a google search confirmed it) about a steel company in Wales who gave up pthe whole plant and closed down as they were just scrapimg by and the next financial year they were liable for millions of pounds worth of carbon credits, at the same time the famous train engineer from India opened basicly the same plant but recieved that many credits, get it yet, dont look at the huge scam, organised by the UN and yes Pachuri has his snout in this trough too, about the R12/R13 scam. Get your facts straight and see what is in front of your eyes, even if it offends you!”
Who buys and sells carbon credits has no bearing on the validity of the science which shows that AGW is a significant driver of the climate.
The dirt thrown at Pachauri has been proven to be slander. Get your facts straight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-financial-relationships
If you are going to claim that the theory of AGW is a conspiracy theory at least get your basic facts right. Your post is pathetic.
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:05 pm
“EFS_Junior says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:22 pm
“I mean his whole life’s work boils down to a single resignation?
That’s the most important thing this individual has done in 87 years of living, a single resignation letter?”
You are the one who wants to know, so why don’t you try to find out? First see if you can figure out the significance of Lewis’ resignation, then report back. It’s pretty simple, but I’m betting you can’t.”
Lewis’ resignation has zero significance. He is a non entity and isn’t going to persuade a significant number of people to resign.
He has never published anything of significant in the field of physics.
The biography that accompanies his letter doesn’t refer to anything he has accomplished, and there is nothing in Google Scholar that refers to his work.
In the light of this information, the burden of proof is on those who consider this a signficant development.
You might as well argue that John McCain’s change of mind is a significant development in the history of climate science.
Get real!
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:26 pm
“eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:53 pm
There is no indication that Hal Lewis has demonstrated any mastery of climate science.
Lewis stated above, 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.
Lewis understands now that Climate Science is not real science. It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method.”
Lewis himself has never done anything significant in the world of science. He has basically been a bureaucrat.
The fact that you agree with his opinion does not demonstrate a mastery of science on his part.
By making such an argument, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logic.
It is a case of the blind leading the blind.
u.k.(us) says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:51 pm
““I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.”
==============================
Only a fool would disregard the implications of this statement.
The only reason this statement needed to be made, was global warming hysteria.
It is just this one thing, that is threatening to tear apart science.
A theory, a profitable theory, is still only a theory.”
This is a foolish argument. There are many scientific theories that have resulted in a lot of large research contracts. This is not prima facie evidence that they are false. Biological evolution, nuclear physics, medical science and DNA are examples of fields in which a lot of scientists found work. Are all the scientists working in this field scamming the public? Do you believe evolution and DNA is a hoax? Is E=Mc^2 wrong? In fact climate scientists don’t make a lot of money relative to other scientists. They are all pretty much upper middle class folks.
The fact that a scientific theory has adherents doesn’t prove that it is false and people only are in it for the money. This is one of the more stupid arguments put up by skeptics, when their scientific objections to AGW are shown to be false.
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:18 pm
“Matt says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
“I don’t understand how the resignation of an 87-year-old physicist proves that climate change is not happening? Could somebody explain this to me?”
Climate change is always happening. But it’s Climate Science’s own “tenet” which claims it can’t be happening now unless fossil fuel CO2 is causing it. Pretty strange, eh?”
Not strange at all. Your comment betrays ignorance.
It is known that the tilt of the earth’s axis going forward would cause the earth to cool in the long term. Changes in the output of the sun cannot account for the warming we have seen in the last 35 years. AGW is not a “tenet” but rather is the result of modelling the earth’s climate using physics.
eadler says on October 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Pot, kettle, black?
Actually, the temperatures we are currently undergoing look lower than the Holocene Climate Optimum and seem lower that those seen in previous inter-glacials.
That is, we are still rebounding from the last glacial.
Why don’t you start your own blog and astound the world with your brilliance?
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Your argument doesn’t make sense. It is a lame hypothesis for the purpose of rationalizing your position.
No, if my exposition does not make sense your response is entrenched denial of any other possibility of looking at the world except as a Chicken Little.
I described an analogy to what happened to me, a retired 70 year old particle physicist. Until three years ago I was going with the tide on AGW precisely because I trusted on the integrity of scientists in other disciplines assuming they were working as rigorously within the scientific method. I have over forty years experience with modeling theory in computer programs and comparing with data.
In my case, as I am naive on world politics and mass movements, I started smelling fish when reading somewhere that there was no medieval warm period. I said “what the $%^”. My encyclopedic knowledge included not only the vikings cultivating Greenland but also that in the byzantine period there was a year where they gathered two crops, it was so temperate. At that time, the hunter who was found in the Alps was in the news. Bells started ringing. It is obvious that if the passes were open when he was hunting the temperature must have been higher than the one when the snows melted so that he could be found. That was the beginning of the thread , and discussions with another physicist in a different field, who challenged me to read up and present to our retired scientists lecture series a lecture on global warming. I started digging into the TAR first and into AR4. My physicist’s conclusion is that they, AGWmers, have taken great liberties with physics and enormous license with programing and created a video world of their expectations and presented it as “experiments” !!!! of all things.
The physics foundations are flimsy, and even though I have a lecture that I keep updating,( there are six “predictions” of the models that falsify them), the simplest argument comes from the weather projections: climate projections use the same logic and maths in programs as weather projections. Would you trust weather reports two weeks ahead on whether to carry an umbrella or not? Sometimes they are wrong even for two days ahead. And AGWmers ask the world community to create economic hara kiri, and condemn the third world to starvation, on such unscientific arguments.
I just extended my experience to a logical falling of the scales from prof. Lewis’ eyes.
It is more likely that we are looking at some kind of age related dementia.
Well, I am amazed that you can look and reason in coherent sentences through your early onset dementia. Science is great on medications . I hope you are not on a hara kiri advisory committee.
I can do ad homs as well as anybody.
eadler you are funny, you tell me to get facts straight then point me to a MSN article to back up your ideas, as far as it is possible to tell I have my facts straight but you as a global warming troll do not, I could give you facts all day but you would be blind to them as they do not fit in with your belief system. BTW what colour is the sky in your universe?
anna v says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm
@ eadler
===================
Well said, Anna. There is no doubt….you would [as we say in America] eat this guy for lunch.
And eadler….stop the ad homs and show a little bit of respect.
It really is pathetic…that you would stoop so low to say such things. Definitely grasping for straws.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm
The fact that a scientific theory has adherents doesn’t prove that it is false and people only are in it for the money. This is one of the more stupid arguments put up by skeptics, when their scientific objections to AGW are shown to be false.
===================================
Who put gunpowder in this guy’s Kibbles & Bits?
Not only is it lacking in basic logic… the rude, screeching chicken little tone…makes things worse.
It’s worse than we thought.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Lewis was attacking the integrity of the APS and the researchers who come to the conclusion that AGW is a real phenomenon and threatens human society with real harm. This is an ad hominem attack, accusing the people who run the APS of fraud. One ad hominem attack deserves another.” – EAdler, October 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Pointing out the lack of integrity of a person or a group of people is NOT an ad hominem attack when the things being said are facts and what occurred.
The accusations of fraud is a perfectly reasonable assessment of the APS society leadership as spelled out by Lewis’s well stated explanation of their alleged fraud.
Retaliating for an ad hominem attack with one in kind is not the best idea EAdler, in fact I’d advise against it if you really wish to be taken seriously. Revkin going into ad hominem personal attack mode again Lewis is not called for since Lewis was stating facts of the matter in question.
The appropriate response to an ad hominem personal attack is to rebuke the person by (1) pointing out that they used an ad hominem personal attack, and (2) dissecting their ad hominem personal attack point by point showing how each point is mistaken and uncalled for. Much like I’m rebuking you EAdler for your silly and misguided notion that an Eye for an Eye is a wise policy. The point of a rebuke is so that the person being rebuked can see the error of their behavior and correct it back in line, in this context, with the highest standards of conduct consistent with the Philosophy of Science.
If you actually paid any respect to the Philosophy of Science you would know that Criticism of Science claims is an essential aspect of science and that Lewis is well within appropriate behaviors consistent with the Philosophy of Science.
“Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” – Motto of The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge since circa November 1660.
“Take no one’s word for it, not even the Royal Society’s.” – revised moto by pwl, to be applied to the Royal Society itself, circa October 2010.
“I’m trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS.” – Richard Feynman
“Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence.” – James Randi
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” – Thomas Henry Huxley
eadler says:
October 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Looks like the makings of a consipracy to bully the editorial staff of a journal to me. It’s not the only instance of conspiracy fact in the letters and I’m sure it fueled some of the good professor’s revulsion as it did mine.
If it’s conspiracy theory you want then look no further than here:
Hal Lewis has integrity. What I got from his letter of resignation is that APS has become the cheerleading team for Deutschebank, BP and … Obama. oops I mean Chu-leaders.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm
The fact that you agree with his opinion does not demonstrate a mastery of science on his part.
eadler, your own “Thou shalt remain as far behind the curve as possible” is not a way to master much of anything.
anna v says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I suspect the two highlighted portions apply to the majority of scientists. It takes a lot of due diligence outside one’s area of expertise to fairly assess the facts surrounding the atmospheric science. Scientists are acccustomed to accepting the data and conclusions of other scientists (usually, unless something akin to perpetual motion is being claimed) when the work is in another discipline.
Interestingly physicists, mathematicians, and engineers seem to smell a rat the quickest as they’ll usually, with little effort, spot something very questionable and fundamental in the CAGW hypothesis.
The trust in science is, I think, not as strong with the general public and they (at least the older ones) are usually not naive about the politics. They smell a rat as soon as someone tries to use science to frighten them into giving up more money and control over their lives for what appears to them to be more like a green religion instead of green technology.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Well, duh!
Lewis was one of three of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s graduate students when the atomic bomb was being developed during WWII. They followed him everywhere. Most of his work then and in the following decades has been in that area, is highly classified, and compartmentalized on a need-to-know basis. After that it appears he continued mostly dong classified work in risk assessment for the US federal government with the very highest of security clearances.
Matt says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Lewis didn’t resign because he thinks climate science is wrong. He resigned because open scientific debate on the subject was denied by the APS controlling body in direct contravention of APS by-laws.
OT but Stoat Connolley thinks he’s still in? from his site:
At last your out of Wikipedia lets hope its permanent
[But I’m not. You’re thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FClimate_change I believe -W]
Posted by: Emerita | October 14, 2010 9:24 PM
Here is your test and an analysis of the results.
There are 2 topics:
a) psychobabble ‘perception’
b) ‘science’
The topic of discussion is ‘perception(s)’ yet participants insist that they are were talking about the ‘science’.
It’s like watching a train wreak in slow motion.
Regarding Andrew Revkin’s rebuttal, Yes, 20 years can and often does make a huge difference in how people see the world and it’s various issues. Some might even say that’s called maturity and wisdom. You know the old saying “If I only knew then what I know now.”
*****
George E. Smith says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:41 pm
What a wonderfully unassailable position you speak from eadler. Your entire essay rests on these simple words :- “”In my opinion “”
*****
Gee, George. Take a look at the way alarmist scientists couch their “predictions.” Global warming “may,” “might,” “could,” “should,” have this or that bad effect. As far as I’m concerned, those sorts of statements are nothing more that opinion – maybe less than, in fact.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“Lewis is not a climate scientist….”
=============
What eadler and the other warmists trolling here don’t want people to know is that “climate scientists” aren’t scientists. A scientists is someone who follows the Scientific Method. The POLICY of “climate scientists” is to deliberately violate the Scientific Method. Their data and workings are secret. They REFUSE to allow independent verifications of their “studies”. For good reasons – when their data and methods are exposed – either by accident (McIntyre finding the poorly hidden “Censored” ftp directory of Mann), or by being forced (the Royal Society requiring Briffa, after years of refusal, to publish his Yamal data) – it is found that those methods and data are wrong. And not to mention the criminal refusal to respond to FOIA requests, the corruption of peer review, etc. etc.
What eadler, Revkin, and the other catastrophe-mongers are doing is following in the footsteps of Trofim Lysenko. That’s why they refuse to engage in honest debate based on real science. That Hal Lewis knows the difference between Science and “climate science” is greatly to his credit. Which is why the slander campaign against him is now in full swing.
And water isn’t wet, and the Sun isn’t hot, and so on, and so on.
At WUWT, reality is as the choir sings it.
If your brother were to commit some terrible crime, you might want to say that he wasn’t your brother any more, but it really wouldn’t be true.
While other scientists might often wish that climate scientists were not scientists, it unfortunately isn’t so. We cannot limit the damage these people are doing to the reputation of science in this way.
Any chance of a preview button? Especially when using HTML tags it would be nice to see what it looks like before committing the post.
—————
Adam R.,
The majesty of your omniscience underwhelms me.
Have a great all-knowing day there Adam. : )
I appreciate your humorous comment, so I would like to offer some of my questionable humor to you as a gift in return;
John
Adam R. says:
October 16, 2010 at 11:56 am
@Andrew Russell :
…“climate scientists” aren’t scientists.
And water isn’t wet, and the Sun isn’t hot, and so on, and so on.
At WUWT, reality is as the choir sings it.
That is hilarious, coming from an obvious member of the Warmen Tabernacle.
Truly, though, the high priests (and priestesses) of the Church of Warmenology can not be considered scientists, since they don’t actually practice science. Instead, they have their precious models they consult with prior to making their various pontifications, which the Believers dutifully take as the Truth, and woe betide any sinners and heretics who dare question them.
Ian H says:
October 16, 2010 at 12:21 pm
“While other scientists might often wish that climate scientists were not scientists, it unfortunately isn’t so. ”
It is irrelevant what one wishes about the so-called “climate scientists”; the objective truth is that they are not scientists, because they refuse to follow the scientific method. They are ideological propagandists paid to pretend to be scientists. Some of them may even have been genuine scientists at one time, but are no longer. The damage that is done to the reputation of science and scientists will not – in the short term – be undone by truthfully insisting that they are not scientists, but it is nevertheless a truth that needs to be repeated for the long term, if the real science of climatology (not “climate science”) is ever to be recreated.
John, I love that film I put it on when I feel low as the humor and disdain for corrupt authority never fail to cheer me up. However it still is not as funny as eadler types and makes more sense!!
For Adam R. and his fellow catastrophe-mongers:
“Climate science” – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”. (apologies to Inigo Montoya…)
Andrew Russell says:
October 16, 2010 at 11:06 am
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“Lewis is not a climate scientist….”
=============
What eadler and the other warmists trolling here don’t want people to know is that “climate scientists” aren’t scientists. A scientists is someone who follows the Scientific Method. The POLICY of “climate scientists” is to deliberately violate the Scientific Method. Their data and workings are secret. They REFUSE to allow independent verifications of their “studies”. For good reasons – when their data and methods are exposed – either by accident (McIntyre finding the poorly hidden “Censored” ftp directory of Mann), or by being forced (the Royal Society requiring Briffa, after years of refusal, to publish his Yamal data) – it is found that those methods and data are wrong. And not to mention the criminal refusal to respond to FOIA requests, the corruption of peer review, etc. etc.”
That is all nonsense. The handling of scientific data by climate scientists is really more open than ever. Climate data is in an open repository on the internet. A lot of the FOIA requests amount to petty harrassment. This claim is just a smoke screen to compensate for the lack of scientific validity to the numerous dumb arguments against the overwhelming evidence of AGW.
“What eadler, Revkin, and the other catastrophe-mongers are doing is following in the footsteps of Trofim Lysenko. That’s why they refuse to engage in honest debate based on real science. That Hal Lewis knows the difference between Science and “climate science” is greatly to his credit. Which is why the slander campaign against him is now in full swing.”
Hal Lewis is an old fossil who never did any significant scientific work in his life. Twenty years ago, when he still had his marbles, he warmly embraced the science behind AGW. Are you accusing him of dishonesty at that time?
His attempt to become self important, after not having published any scientific papers on any topic, including climate science, and giving no cogent reasons for the reversal of his opinion on AGW, merits the scorn that he is getting from those who know which end is up.
jks says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:45 am
“Regarding Andrew Revkin’s rebuttal, Yes, 20 years can and often does make a huge difference in how people see the world and it’s various issues. Some might even say that’s called maturity and wisdom. You know the old saying “If I only knew then what I know now.””
He doesn’t really say anything about what specifically caused him to change his mind. The guy is 87. Some people become potty in their old age. The guy has done nothing memorable as a scientist, and is probably trying to make a reputation on the cheap in his final years.
eadler says:
October 16, 2010 at 5:37 pm
He doesn’t really say anything about what specifically caused him to change his mind. The guy is 87. Some people become potty in their old age. The guy has done nothing memorable as a scientist, and is probably trying to make a reputation on the cheap in his final years.
==========================
With ad hominem laced venom like that, I can’t imagine just how “potty” you will be in your old age.
Anthony is a gentleman to let you post your continued utter crap on here.
The good thing is, the more you spew out your words, the less you win any converts to your religion [the International Church of the Great CAGW]
Keep talking….by all means….keep talking.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
eadler, give it up. The best you can do is attack a mans age. The same was done against every retired sceptic. It’s a tired ad-hom.
DaveE.
eadler,
Andrew Russell made some specific accusations, which you blow off with: “That is all nonsense.” That is the kind of mindless response we see on realclimate, climate progress and the other censoring alarmist echo chamber blogs.
Why not try to explain — if you are able — why Mann hid his “censored” file? Of course if he had used it, there would never have been an MBH98/99 Hokey Stick — and with it your whole belief system would come crashing down around your ears. Cognitive dissonance can be nasty when the flying saucers don’t arrive on schedule.
Those of us who have followed the anti-science shenanigans of Mann, Briffa, Hughes, Jones, Wigley, Hughes, Schmidt, Schneider, and the rest of that gang with both front feet in the public trough, know the reason they hide their raw data, methods and metadata: if they publicly archived it as you falsely claim they do, their increasingly ridiculous CO2=CAGW hypothesis would be immediately debunked.
You point out that “The handling of scientific data by climate scientists is really more open than ever.” And why would that be? Can you say “CLIMATEGATE”? It is true that there is more openness now than before Climategate, but the same climate clique charlatans are still far from following the scientific method. It’s been twelve [12] years since MBH98 — and your Hokey Team is still stonewalling all requests for their methodology and metadata.
And who made you the arbiter of which FOI requests should be granted? Did someone make you the FOI judge and jury? Or are you only another useful fool who passes on ridiculous alarmist talking points?
Finally, your lowlife attack on Dr Lewis follows the Saul Alinksy script to the letter: attack the individual. Take the spotlight off of the actual issues. Make the person the issue. So you do as you’re told, and go into full ad hominem attack mode:
“Hal Lewis is an old fossil who never did any significant scientific work in his life… When he had his marbles… His attempt to become self important, after not having published any scientific papers on any topic… giving no cogent reasons… the scorn that he is getting from those who know which end is up… The guy is 87. Some people become potty in their old age. The guy has done nothing memorable as a scientist, and is probably trying to make a reputation on the cheap in his final years.”
Your attempted smear of Dr Lewis was written for one reason: because Dr Lewis has a different opinion than you do. Could you be any more despicable? Most folks, when they are unable to counter skeptics’ arguments, have the class to move on. Not you, eh?
An “an important moment in science history”? More like “old codger who’s irrelevant has a leak in his Depends”.
Lewis went emeritus. BFD.
Smokey, elegantly put, I would ask has eadler always been an asshole or did he study?
Derecho64 loves him his Saul Alinsky.
The absolute best summary of Lewis’ tantrum:
http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/10/im-really-angry-with-aps.html
Really captures the essence of the matter!
REPLY: Since it seems likely you are the person who wrote that satire, please remove the title of Dr. from my name. Thanks, – Anthony
Luke 15 v7
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Derech;
No, stupidly wrong. He resigned as a member and Fellow of the APS. “Emeritus” refers to university positions. None involved.
Chris Edwards says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Smokey, elegantly put, I would ask has eadler always been an asshole or did he study?
=============================
LMAO.
Of course, you won’t get your response because eadler has slithered back to his trollhole, coward that he is. [“mechanically forced” ad hom intended here, I must confess.].
At this point, it boils down to calling it like it is.
Hey…the truth sometimes hurts.
-Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
OK, it’s been a week, and this latest mighty sword in the hands of the [word I dare not use because it makes Anthony sad—rhymes with “criers”] turns out to be yet another bent spoon. No science has been slain and the APS stubbornly refuses to relinquish its grip on reality.
What will the next one be, I wonder? Al Gore had a big power bill? Heck: done that. How about shape-shifting alien reptiles in charge of the National Academy of Sciences? Now THAT would be a good one. Dare you to prove it’s not true, Warmistas!
Whoosh!
Not really — it deals essentially with the APS’s refusal to follow its procedures and desire thereby to suppress intramural debate and discussion in a Topical Group. The story is not about the global warming controversy, but about the meta-controversy of how it is being suppressed.
There’sa difference: By now people should know better.
I see his resignation as a challenge to the underhand tactics of the manufacturers of a consensus. The authority of these scientific societies that have endorsed CAWGism has been a powerful propaganda tool, as people assume that these bodies have issued a well-considered and thoughtful opinion, when in they haven’t come close. They’ve “gone along” with what the activists inside and outside told them, and haven’t really given ear to the dissenters’ case.
Nothing posters here say is needed to add authority to his charge of unconstitutional behvior, which is prima facie believable.
Lewis’s position (that there is a strong case against CAWGism) is backed the 200+ co-signers of his petition, so any wobbliness in his own personal grasp of the subject is not crucial. Presumably his co-signers aren’t all ignorant.
From the footnote to his letter at the top of this thread:
He’s also a Fellow of the APS, a rare distinction.
They’re scientwists.
I’ll repeat what was posted well above your post, and which should have forestalled it:
With apologies to WC, “Some nonentity! Some neck!”
😀
Eadler and other detractors: It’s obvious Lewis is in the level ABOVE those scientists whose only chance at recognition is through prodigious publications. By the way, has that approach enhanced Mann’s status among honest scientists? Hardly!
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm
u.k.(us) says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:51 pm
You conclude:
“The fact that a scientific theory has adherents doesn’t prove that it is false and people only are in it for the money. This is one of the more stupid arguments put up by skeptics, when their scientific objections to AGW are shown to be false.”
==========================
You seem to be a master straw man builder, your entire conclusion has been pulled out of thin air. Neither of your statements was even brought up, except by you.
I’d like to know how Lewis derives his “trillions” figure. Anyone know?
I’ve seen the details recently, but don’t have them to hand. In a nutshell, the economic “hits” caused by pushing down carbon use with taxes and caps, plus the huge mandated and subsidized expenditures on inefficient green power like wind and rooftop solar, quickly add up to many hundreds of billions a year. 2 or 3 years of that and you’re into the trillions.
Roger Knights: “Not really — it deals essentially with the APS’s refusal to follow its procedures and desire thereby to suppress intramural debate and discussion in a Topical Group. The story is not about the global warming controversy, but about the meta-controversy of how it is being suppressed.”
We’re talking here about generating controversy and publicity. In that sense, the arcane nature of the dispute is self-defeating.
Lewis is claiming oppression. Perhaps that is the case, but it’s not clear from the accounts I’ve read where the rights and wrongs lie, hence the failure of this issue to gain traction among the general public.
RockyRoad says:
October 17, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Eadler and other detractors: It’s obvious Lewis is in the level ABOVE those scientists whose only chance at recognition is through prodigious publications. By the way, has that approach enhanced Mann’s status among honest scientists? Hardly!
When I studied physics years ago, I never heard of Harold Lewis. It seems he was just a bureaucrat and hanger on. His oral history interview is simply a bunch of name dropping. There is no trace of any publication or any research. This is not my idea of a scientist.
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html
Mann is a respected scientist, among scientists.
The only work that is traceable on the internet is dates from the time he was chairman of a committee to study Nuclear Winter, a phenomenon that is said to result from a nuclear war which would create dust and smoke which would block the sun. As a result of that work, he developed respect for the climate models which were used to develop the conclusions about this phenomenon, and he recommended these models highly, and pointed out that they predicted global warming would ensue from CO2 emissions resulting from human activity. Was he dishonest then, only looking out for big bucks from the research that this prediction would drive? Did he believe that the late Stephen Schneider, who did much of the work that was the basis of his report was dishonest also?
The only thing Lewis did,that he was remembered for, was based on the same climate research he now derides. It seems that he is impeaching his judgement at the peak of his career. Is his judgment really improved at age 87?
eadler says:
October 18, 2010 at 11:05 am
Mann is a respected scientist, among scientists.
Yes, that’s the mass delusional problem.
Though as Hal points out those ‘scientists’ who don’t experience revulsion at Mann’s emails in the east anglia collection aren’t worthy of the title anyway.
I posted:
Raving wrote:
Huh? That’s got nothing to do with the test I proposed.
A bureaucrat is an administrator, like a dean or a high governmental official or the head of a complex development project, like Oppenheimer. Lewis was a none of those. He was researcher at Bell Labs, a teacher at top schools, and a member and sometimes chairman of various working groups that advised government and helped develop policies and standards. Nonentities don’t get invited to join such committees, let alone chair them.
Some of the Bell Labs work would have been proprietary, and most of his nuclear work would have been classified, as Dave Springer pointed out.
The APS disagrees, having elevated him to a Fellowship. He was obviously head and shoulders above the run-of-the-mill physicist.
Anyway, it wouldn’t matter if Lewis were just a high school physics teacher, if his charge of APS misbehavior were correct.
And Lewis’s position on global warming is backed by 200+ co-signers, including 17 other APS Fellows. They may be wrong, but they can’t be brushed off as nonentities, as you’re attempting to do. Attention must be paid. A Topical Group should have been formed.
So let’s have an official investigation! (The investigators can either expose the wrong or cover it up, digging their side into a deeper hole.)
PS: Or how about a congressional investigation? A mere “fact-finder” would do the job.
Roger Knights:: “So let’s have an official investigation! (The investigators can either expose the wrong or cover it up, digging their side into a deeper hole.)”
Since you’ve already decided your view of the outcome of this hypothetical investigation, may as well cut out the middleman and save the time and money.
Is Climate Science closer to historical research than to physics? The problem is that we use the term ‘science’ to cover a multitude of sins whereas Professor’s Mann, Jones, Briffa et al are engaged in a process of discovering historical evidence to validate their theories of climate change and populate various models which purport to predict the future. The methods of the natural sciences whilst useful cannot bring closure to the debate about climate change because like all historical research the data that has been collected can equally support more than one theory at a time. The unaided astronomical observations of the Persians supported both Ptolemy and Copernicus and, to a large extent Galileo and Newton. Macro economic data supported both Freidman and Keynes. The problem where there is no definitive and immediate empirical validation of a theory is that it becomes a battle for consensus which theory dominates and this is a matter of opinion and of politics.
Dr Lewis is a highly respected figure in the American academy – like gaining fellowship of the Royal Society in the UK – it is only granted to the finest scientists of the day. On reflection I strongly support his highly principled stand against the APS for not permitting an airing of the ‘skeptical’ case. However, I do think he has erred in setting the bar too high for climate science. This version of science is not the science which he is familiar with. I suspect the term ‘fraud’ in the context of climate science did not help his case and probably closed ears and minds to his otherwise cogent argument.
As for the ad-hominem attacks on him, and indeed on Mann, Jones and others – they are not helpful. Mann, through his PhD and subsequent publication was I believe (others will correct me if wrong) the first to perform a systematic investigation of a wide range of climate proxies using PCA. His method had flaws, it is a difficult technique to execute effectively and interpret properly (I have had many PhD students who will attest to that), but he deserves credit for the attempt. It is legitimate to criticise the work of other ex-post, but character assassination is quite unacceptable. Others who have followed have been more successful but far from conclusive in my view that recent warming has been principally driven by CO2 emissions. But, that is my opinion based upon what I have had time to read and study. But, if this debate is to get anywhere, both sides need to open up to one another in a spirit of generosity. Even though ‘climate science’ may not be the real thing the questions it asks and attempts to answer are deadly serious. This debate needs the best of our intellectual skills – not the worst.
Mods: Several posts seem to have disappeared from this site. (Not just a post I submitted, because Brandon’s already-posted comment has disappeared as well. It’s not that I’m mistaken about the thread it was in, because a site-search on google fails to turn up Brandon’s remarks as well. I’m reposting my response to him below.
[REPLY: The posts are there and intact. Note;
Roger Knights
2010/10/18 at 11:05 pm
…bl57~mod]
(Oops, sorry: “Brendan.”)
================
That’s like saying, “Let’s not have a trial, because you have an opinion of the outcome,” or “Let’s not have a world series, because you think you know who’ll win.”
For me it is simple.
The MWP and LIA did exist, and significantly changed world history.
Mann’s work attempts to reduce the significance.
Why? Let us discuss the facts, and appraise the significance.
Hal Lewis attempted to bring about discussion.
The American Physical Society actively resisted open discussion.
Has Lewis resigned to bring this resistance to scientific openness to the forefront.
Let us stop the mud-slinging, and get back to open discussion.
I am fairly certain open discussion will get us back to the simple fact that the MWP and LIA did exist, and did have a significant effect on world history. If this weaken the political arguments of a certain group, well, so be it.
Roger Knights: “That’s like saying, “Let’s not have a trial, because you have an opinion of the outcome,” or “Let’s not have a world series, because you think you know who’ll win.””
I was highlighting the presumption of guilt. And I doubt that climate sceptics would be happy with the outcome of an investigation, so we might as well save ourselves all the wailing over “whitewash” etc.
‘The Christian Science Monitor jumps the shark with pre-debunked, anti-science op-ed by Anthony Watts on Harold Lewis’s resignation from APS ‘
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/19/christian-science-monitor-anti-science-anthony-watts-harold-lewiss-resignation-from-aps/
Romm chimes in.