Physicists send letter to Senate — Cite 160 scientists protest regarding APS climate position

Since I’m not legally allowed to show the American Physical Society logo (they complained last time) this will have to do:

consensus

A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS

You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you.

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia

Professor Will Happer, Princeton University

Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford

Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human –on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.

* The statement of the APS Council, adopted on November 18, 2007 is as follows:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. 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.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, 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.”

— APS News; January 2008 (Volume 17, Number 1)

SIGNATURES:

30 October 2009 162 Signatures

Harold M. Agnew President, General Atomics Corporation (1979 -1984) White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989) Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970 -1979)

E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal (with H.A. Bethe) 2001 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, AAAS

Sol Aisenberg President, International Technology Group Formerly Staff Member, MIT; Lecturer, Harvard Medical School; Visiting Research Professor, Boston University

Ralph B. Alexander Former Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University President, R.B. Alexander & Associates Technology and market analysis in environmentally friendly materials and coatings Author, Global Warming False Alarm (Canterbury)

Moorad Alexanian Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography University of North Carolina -Wilmington Member Mexican Academy of Sciences, American Scientific Affiliation

Louis J. Allamandola Director, Astrochemistry Laboratory NASA Ames Research Center Fellow APS, AAAS Member ACS, American Astronomical Society, International Astronomical Union

James L. Allen Engineer/Scientist International Space Station Program The Boeing Company (retired)

Arthur G. Anderson Vice President and former Director of Research IBM (retired) Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS, Fellow IEEE

Eva Andrei Professor of Physics Rutgers University Fellow APS

Robert H. Austin Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS; APS Council: 1991-1994, 2007-2010 Member National Academy of Sciences, American Association of Arts and Sciences

David A. Bahr Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Bemidji State University

Franco Battaglia Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy Life Member APS

David J. Benard Aerospace Scientist (retired) Co-Inventor of the Chemical Oxygen-Iodine Laser

Lev I. Berger President California Institute of Electronics and Materials Science Author, Semiconductor Materials; and Material and Device Characterization Measurements (CRC Press)

Stuart B. Berger Research Fellow and Divisional Time-to-Market Manager Xerox Corporation (retired)

Ami E. Berkowitz Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at San Diego Fellow APS

Barry L. Berman Columbian Professor and Chair Physics Department The George Washington University Fellow APS

Edwin X. Berry Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Physics, LLC Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180 Member American Meteorological Society

Frances M. Berting Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board and Committee (2000-present) Los Alamos County Council (2001-2008) Formerly Materials Scientist, Hanford (DOE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Westinghouse, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Vladislav A. Bevc Associate Professor, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey (retired); Formerly Member of the Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation; Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution (Stanford University) Senior Member IEEE

Clifford Bruce Bigham Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (retired) Senior Member APS, Sustaining Member CAP

Arie Bodek George E. Pake Professor of Physics University of Rochester Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics (APS) 2004 Fellow APS

John W. Boring Professor Emeritus of Engineering Physics University of Virginia

Lowell S. Brown Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Washington Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS

Daniel M. Bubb Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Rutgers University -Camden

Timothy D. Calvin President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired) Fabricated rubber products for the DOD, shoe and automobile industries Member ACS

William J. Camp Emeritus Director: Computation, Information, and Mathematics Sandia National Laboratories Co-founder, IUPAP Commission C-20, The Commission on Computational Physics Nova Award for Invention of the Cray XT3 Computer Architecture (Lockheed Martin Corporation) Fellow APS, Member IEEE Computer Society

Mark L. Campbell Professor, Department of Chemistry United States Naval Academy Life Member APS

Gregory H. Canavan Senior Fellow and Scientific Advisor, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Jack G. Castle Senior Scientist Sandia National Laboratories (retired) Fellow and Life Member APS

Joseph F. Chiang Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York, Oneonta Life Member APS

Roger W. Cohen Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Otto Schade Prize (Society for Information Display) 2006 Fellow APS

Barry D. Crane Project Director Institute for Defense Analyses Life Member APS

Steven R. Cranmer Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Karen Harvey Prize (AAS) 2006 Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics Member: American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union

J. F. Cuderman Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Sandia National Laboratories (retired), Life Member APS

Jerry M. Cuttler President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc. Engineering, consulting, and licensing services for the nuclear power industry President, Canadian Nuclear Society 1995-1996 Fellow Canadian Nuclear Society, Member American Nuclear Society

James H. Degnan Principal Physicist Directed Energy Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph G. Depp Founding President and CEO, Accuray Incorporated (retired) Stereotactic radiosurgery technology Founding President and CEO, PsiStar Incorporated Life Member APS

Riccardo DeSalvo Senior Scientist Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) California Institute of Technology Member ASME

James A. Deye Nuclear and Medical physicist Life Member APS

Eugene H. Dirk APS Division of Astrophysics, and Division of Computational Physics Topical Groups on Gravity, and Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants

David H. Douglass Professor of Physics University of Rochester Fellow APS

Paul J. Drallos President and CEO, Plasma Dynamics Corporation (retired) Kinetic & fluid dynamic computer simulation services

Murray Dryer Emeritus Scientist Space Weather Prediction Center (retired), NWS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Member American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union, AIAA

William T. Duffy Jr. Professor Emeritus of Physics Santa Clara University

David F. Edwards Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired) Formerly Los Alamos National Laboratory; Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Colorado State University; Lincoln Laboratory, MIT

Albert G. Engelhardt President and CEO, Enfitek, Inc. Environmental control and security systems Senior Life Member IEEE

James E. Enstrom Research Professor Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center University of California at Los Angeles Life Member APS

Jens G. Feder Professor of Physics of Geological Processes University of Oslo Fellow APS

Douglas E. Fields Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico

Michael M. Fitelson Chief Scientist, Micro-Systems Enablers Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems

Harold K. Forsen Senior Vice President, Bechtel Corporation (retired) Governing Board, National Research Council (1994-2003) Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (1995-2003) Arthur Holly Compton Award (ANS) 1972 Member National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, ANS, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Bruce L. Freeman Senior Experimental Physicist, Ktech Corporation Formerly Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M Coauthor Explosively Driven Pulsed Power (Springer);

Explosive Pulsed Power (Imperial College) Member IEEE Plasma Sciences, Directed Energy Professional Society

Peter D. Friedman Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Member American Geophysical Union, ASME, American Nuclear Society

Michael H. Frese Designer/Developer of Multiphysics

Simulation Codes and Applications Founder and Managing Member of NumerEx, LLC Member SIAM, IEEE Ian J. Fritz Research Physicist, Sandia National Laboratories (retired) R&D 100 Award 1991 Basic Energy Sciences Sustained Outstanding Achievement Award (DOE) 1993 Lockheed Martin NOVA Award 2001

Rodger L. Gamblin Managing Director Corona Color, LLC

John C. Garth Research Physicist Air Force Research Laboratory (retired) Member ANS, ASTM, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Computational Medical Physics Working Group

G. Roger Gathers Senior Scientist, M. H. Chew and Associates Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1967-1993) Author, Selected Topics in Shock Wave Physics and

Equation of State Modeling (World Scientific Publishing)

Gary J. Gerardi Professor, Department of Chemistry and Physics William Paterson University

Ivar Giaever Institute Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 Member National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS

George T. Gillies Research Professor, School of Engineering and Applied Science; and Research Professor, Department of Physics University of Virginia Clinical Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Fellow APS

Damon Giovanielli President, Sumner Associates scientific consultants Former Division Leader, Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory LANL staff member, program and line manager (1972-1993) Fellow AAAS

Albert Gold Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University (retired)

Ronald B. Goldfarb National Institute of Standards and Technology Life Member APS

Laurence I. Gould Professor of Physics University of Hartford Member Executive Board of the New England Section of the APS Chairman (2004), New England Section APS

Paul M. Grant EPRI Science Fellow (retired) IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus Senior Life Fellow APS

Howard D. Greyber University of Pennsylvania (retired) Formerly Princeton University, LLNL Theory Group, Northeastern University Member American Astronomical Society, Fellow Royal Astronomical Society

Ronald J. Gripshover Senior Research Physicist Naval Surface Weapons Center (retired)

Mike Gruntman Professor of Astronautics University of Southern California Author, Blazing the Trail. The Early History of Spacecraft and Rocketry (AIAA) Luigi G. Napolitano Book Award (International Academy of Astronautics) 2006 Member American Geophysical Union, Associate Fellow AIAA

George Hacken Senior Director, Safety-Critical Systems New York City Transit Authority Formerly Senior Member of the Technical Staff, GEC-Marconi Aerospace Chair, New York Chapter, IEEE Computer Society Member AMS, SIAM, ANS, AIAA, New York Academy of Sciences

David S. Hacker Senior Staff Research Engineer Amoco Corporation (retired) Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle (1965-1981) Fellow AIChE

Sultan Hameed Professor of Atmospheric Science School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University, New York

William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS Member National Academy of Sciences

Howard C. Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut Editor, The Energy Advocate Author, A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Vales Lake)

Dennis B. Hayes Research Physicist Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories President, Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc. (retired) Fellow APS

Jack M. Hollander Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley Vice-President Emeritus, The Ohio State University First Head, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS

David B. Holtkamp Scientific Staff Member, Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory

John C. Ingraham Scientific Staff Member, retired Los Alamos National Laboratory Member American Geophysical Union

Helen Jackson Research Physicist, Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Laboratory Member Materials Research Society, IEEE

H. Richard Johnson Co-Founder and Former CEO Watkins-Johnson Company (retired) Member National Academy of Engineering, Life Fellow IEEE

James R. Johnson 3M Company (retired) Member Carlton Society (3M Hall of Fame) Member National Academy of Engineering

O’Dean Judd LANL Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Technical Advisor and Consultant Fellow APS, IEEE, AAAS

Andrew Kaldor Distinguished Scientific Advisor Manager of Breakthrough Research ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Fellow AAAS, Member ACS

Alexander E. Kaplan Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The Johns Hopkins University Max Born Award (Optical Society of America) 2005 Alexander von Humboldt Award (von Humboldt Foundation) 1996 Fellow OSA

Thomas J. Karr Director in the Advanced Concepts & Technology Division Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1984-1996) Editor, Applied Optics (1991-1994) Member OSA, AAAS; Senior Member IEEE

Jonathan Katz Professor of Physics Washington University

William E. Keller Leader, Low Temperature Physics Group 1971-1985 Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

John M. Kennel Autonetics Division, Boeing North American (retired) Formerly Electronics Division, Northrop Grumman Corporation Member AAAS, AIAA

Paul I. Kingsbury Manager, Physical Properties Research Department Corning Inc. (retired)

Robert S. Knox Professor of Physics Emeritus University of Rochester Member APS Council (1985-1988) Fellow APS

M. Kristiansen C.B.Thornton/P.W.Horn Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas Tech University Fellow APS, IEEE

Moyses Kuchnir Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (retired) Life Member APS, Member IEEE, AAAS

Joseph A. Kunc Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California Fellow APS

Robert E. LeLevier Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1951-1957) Physics Department, RAND Corp (1957-1971) R&D Associates (1971-1983) Eos Technologies, Inc. (1983-1993)

Paul L. La Celle Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering Former Chair, Department of Biophysics University of Rochester Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort

Robert E. Levine Industrial and Defense Physics and Engineering (retired) Member ACM, IEEE

Harold W. Lewis Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Chairman, Defense Science Board Panel on Nuclear Winter Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study Fellow APS, AAAS

John D. Lindl James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics (APS) 2007 Fellow APS, AAAS

Xavier Llobet Research Associate Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Gabriel G. Lombardi Senior Scientist, Phase Coherence, Inc. National Research Council Associate (NIST, 1980-82) Life Member APS, Member OSA

Michael D. Lubin Colonel, United States Air Force (retired)

Alfred U. MacRae President, MacRae Technologies Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS, IEEE

Phillip W. Mange Associate Superintendent, Space Science Division Scientific Consultant to the Director of Research, Naval Research Laboratory (retired)

John E. Mansfield Vice Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Kristanka Marinova Department of Chemical Engineering Faculty of Chemistry Sofia University

Joseph Maserjian Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired)

John H. McAdoo Aerospace Physicist Member IEEE, AAAS

Thomas A. McClelland Vice President, Commercial Products Frequency Electronics, Inc.

Harold Mirels Principal Scientist, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Fellow APS, AIAA Member National Academy of Engineering

Jim Mitroy Lecturer in Physics, School of Engineering and Information Technology Charles Darwin University, Australia

Michael Monce Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College Member AAPT, American Geophysical Union

Nasif Nahle Scientific Research Director Biology Cabinet, Mexico Member AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences

Rodney W. Nichols President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences (1992-2001) Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University (1970-1990) Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Meritorious Civilian Service (1970) Fellow AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences

Gordon C. Oehler Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Working Group Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. Corporate Vice President for Corporate Development, SAIC (1998-2004) National Intelligence Officer for Science, Technology and Proliferation (1989-1992)

William P. Oliver Professor of Physics Tufts University Life Member APS

Frank R. Paolini Adjunct Professor of Physics University of Connecticut at Stamford (retired) Senior Member APS, Member IEEE

Daniel N. Payton III Senior Scientist, SAIC (1992-present) Eos Technologies (1984-1992) Technical Director of Nuclear Technology Air Force Weapons Laboratory (1976-1984)

Erik M. Pell Xerox Corporation (retired) Author: From Dreams to Riches – The Story of Xerography (Carlson) Edward Goodrich Acheson Medal (Electrochemical Society) 1986 President, Electrochemical Society (1980-1981) Fellow APS, Honorary Member ECS, Senior Member IEEE

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. Physicist (retired) Operations Evaluation Group, MIT US Naval Ordnance Laboratory Senior Member APS

Donald Rapp Chief Technologist, Mechanical and Chemical Systems, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired) Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979) Author, “Assessing Climate Change” and “Ice Ages and Interglacials” (Springer-Verlag) Fellow APS

Ned S. Rasor Consulting Physicist Formerly President and CEO, Rasor Associates, Inc. Member IEEE, AIAA

Richard T. Rauch NASA Stennis Space Center Life Member APS, Associate Fellow AIAA

John E. Rhoads Professor of Physics Midwestern State University (retired) Member SPE

Harry I. Ringermacher Sr. Research Physicist General Electric Global Research Center AIP “History of Physics in Industry” Participant at GE Sir William Herschel Medal (American Academy of Thermology) Copper Black Award (American Mensa) 2003 and 2007

Stanley Robertson Emeritus Professor of Physics Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Berol Robinson Principal Scientific Officer UNESCO (retired) Member AAPT, AAAS, Association des Écologistes Pour le Nucléaire

Daniel J. Rogers Staff Scientist Applied Information Sciences Department Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Member OSA

Robert C. Rohr Reactor Physicist Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (retired) Former Adjunct Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Kelly R. Roos Professor of Physics Bradley University

Isaac C. Sanchez William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

U.S. Department of Commerce Medals 1980, 1983 Edward U. Condon Award (NIST) 1983; SPE International Research Award 1996 Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS

Raymond E. Sarwinski President, Cryogenic Designs, Inc. Life Member APS

Nicola Scafetta Research Scientist, Physics Department, Duke University Member American Geophysical Union

Mark D. Semon Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy Bates College Member American Academy of Forensic Scientists, American College of Forensic Examiners

Thomas P. Sheahen President/ CEO, Western Technology, Inc. (energy sciences consulting) Member AAAS; APS Congressional Science Fellowship (1977-78) Author, Introduction to High Temperature Superconductivity (Springer)

Arnold J. Sierk Technical Staff Member Theoretical Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph Silverman Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Materials Science and Engineering University of Maryland Fellow APS, ANS

S. Fred Singer Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Fellow APS, AAAS, American Geophysical Union

Frans W. Sluijter Professor, Department of Applied Physics Eindhoven University of Technology Former Chair, Plasma Physics Division, European Physics Society Former Vice President, International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Member Dutch Physical Society, Institute of Physics UK

John R. Smith Project Physicist, Experimental High Energy Physics Department of Physics University of California, Davis Life Member APS

Hermann Statz Raytheon Corporation (retired) Microwave Pioneer Award (IEEE) 2004 Fellow APS

Nick Steph Chair, Department of Physics Franklin College Member AAPT, ACS

Peter Stilbs Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden Life Member APS

Norman D. Stockwell Senior Project Engineer, TRW (retired) Former Member of the Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation Life Member APS, Member AAAS

Thomas F. Stratton Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

William R. Stratton Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Member AEC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety Chair ANS Nuclear Reactor Accident Study Fellow ANS

Szymon Suckewer Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Director of Plasma Science & Technology Program Princeton University Fellow APS, OSA

Ronald M. Sundelin Associate Director, DOE Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (retired) Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Physics, Virginia Tech Fellow APS

Andrei Szilagyi Formerly Chief Scientist, Aura Systems, Inc. Chief Technologist, Radiant Technology Corporation Chief Scientist, NanoMuscle Inc. Member MRS, Electrochemical Society, TMS – The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society

Willard L. Talbert Scientific Consultant (1993-present) Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1976-1993 (retired) Professor of Physics, Iowa State University (1961-1976) Fellow APS

Lu Ting Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University Lead Author, Vortex Dominated Flows (Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer) Member SIAM, AIAA, AAM

Frank J. Tipler Professor of Mathematical Physics Tulane University Coauthor, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

Salvatore Torquato Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Materials Institute and Applied & Computational Mathematics Princeton University 2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of Material Physics Fellow APS

Rusty S. Towell Professor of Physics Abilene Christian University Member IEEE

Edward S. Troy Principal Engineer Aerospace Consulting Wireless, RF, microwave, analog/DSP, and GPS circuits and systems Member IEEE

William B. Walters Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland John Simon Guggenheim Fellow (1986) ACS Award in Nuclear Chemistry (2001) Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, University of Mainz (2002) Life Member APS, Member ACS

Samuel A. Werner Curators’ Professor Emeritus The University of Missouri Guest Researcher, NIST Fellow APS, AAAS

Bruce J. West Adjunct Professor of Physics Duke University Fellow APS

Peter J. Wojtowicz Group Head, Senior Member Technical Staff (retired) RCA Labs, GE, Sarnoff Corporation Fellow APS

Ya-Hong Xie Professor of Materials Science and Engineering University of California at Los Angeles Senior Member IEEE, Member Materials Research Society

M. John Yoder Principal Physicist The MITRE Corporation Life Member APS

Claude Zeller Principal Fellow Pitney Bowles Inc. Member IEEE

Martin V. Zombeck Physicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (retired) Author, Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press) Coauthor, High Resolution X-Ray Spectroscopy of Cosmic Plasmas (Cambridge University Press)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

168 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cba
November 3, 2009 2:39 pm

Gail,
your 1kw /m^2 is a peak. Average is more like 341 and including cloud cover averages, 239W/m^2.

Joel Shore
November 3, 2009 2:43 pm

Smokey: You’ve sure gotten real good at whining! The fact is that the poll was conducted by Harris Interactive, a very respected polling firm. It was done for Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University, which those on the Left note, is an operation of the conservative Center for Media and Public Affairs. “Media Transparency lists startup funding for STATS as having come from conservative funders including the John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the William H. Donner Foundation. Other funders include Richard Mellon Scaife’s Carthage Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation” ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service )
As for Lichter: “Until 2008 Robert Lichter was a paid contributor to the Fox News Channel; during the mid-1980’s he held the DeWitt Wallace Chair in Mass Communication at the American Enterprise Institute” ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs )
If anything, it is those of us concerned about AGW who should be skeptical of the poll. (And, indeed, as I have noted past times that I brought it up, their method of selecting their random sample of scientists probably diluted the “climate scientists” that they say it represents the views of with non-climate scientists like forecast meteorologists who tend to have more skeptical views on AGW than the climate scientists themselves.

November 3, 2009 4:08 pm

Joel Shore,
I note that you have consistently avoided answering my question about conducting an honest poll. Show us a poll that has questions that have been agreed to by both sides — as opposed to polls you cite, which are bought and paid for by people with an AGW agenda [someone pays good money for those polls; they don’t just fall from the sky].
If you fail to show us an honest poll, then you’re simply defending AGW polling propaganda. What kind of fool would swallow the ridiculous claim that 97.4% of poll respondents all believe that there is significant AGW occurring?? Certainly not the scientific skeptics who visit this site. And not the rank-and-file APS members, either.
That poll, which you’ve mentioned several times in the past, has zero credibility: 97.4% of folks polled wouldn’t agree that today is Tuesday. Bogus propaganda like that is all the AGW true believers have left; they certainly don’t have real world data that backs their alarming scare stories. Push polls and GIGO computer models,
Ri-i-i-i-ght. What’s next for AGW true believers? Astrology? Scientology? Phrenology?
And Dr Roy Spencer says pretty much the same thing that Prof Richard Lindzen and other, actually credible climate scientists are saying. Spencer and Lindzen are internationally esteemed as two of the top climatologists in their field [BTW, what’s your field? Do you work put in your time at a gov’t agency, or a company or school that takes taxpayer money? It’s amazing the number of really long posts you make here and at the other blogs you comment at, all throughout the work week. The time stamps are interesting. Is it the policy of your employer to let you sit down and endlessly argue on the internet all day? Inquiring minds — and retired posters — want to know.]
Your derogatory comments about Dr Lindzen, who chairs the Atmospheric Sciences department at MIT, is only a reflection on you. And claiming that I’m ‘whining’ when I’m asking you to show us an honest poll is due to the psychological projection typical of believers in runaway global warming and similar AGW climate catastrophe nonsense.
So you go on believing that 97.4% of scientists agree that significant AGW is happening. If you believe that number, you’ll believe anything.

Phil Clarke
November 3, 2009 4:32 pm

The Questions
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?

The Answer
Results show that overall, 90% of participants
answered “risen” to question 1
and 82% answered yes to question 2. In
general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions. In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change. Of these specialists,
96.2% answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% answered yes to question
2.

The publication
EOS – House Journal of the AGU.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

November 3, 2009 5:03 pm

It surprises me to find, in the list of signers above:
Nasif Nahle Scientific Research Director Biology Cabinet, Mexico Member AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences
WUWT?

richardscourtney
November 3, 2009 6:18 pm

Joel Shore:
I gave a clear, factual and reasoned explanation of why human population is constrained by energy supply.
I stated the facts that
(a) human population is increasing from its present total of ~6.6 billion, and
(b) the increase requires additional energy supply for the additional population to survive.
I reported the fact that all predictions are for human population to peak around the middle of this century. And I cited a low estimate for that peak of 9 billion (high estimates are up to 13 billion).
So, preventing additional energy supply by preventing increased use of fossil fuels would certainly kill at least 2 billion people.
Facts. Horrific facts, but facts and only facts.
Your response? You claim that my stating those facts is “alarmist” so you choose to ignore them.
My response to that? Disgust and contempt.
Richard

November 3, 2009 6:51 pm

Phil Clarke,
You go right ahead and believe in your push polls. Scientific skeptics will continue to ask for solid, empirical evidence showing that the “A” in catastrophic AGW is anything other than an alarming fairy tale, endlessly repeated in order to generate ever more $Billions in grant money. The fact that such evidence is not forthcoming isn’t important to them; money and control are what is important.
That poll Joel Shore was referring to was done well before a British judge ruled that Al Gore’s movie was based on a pack of lies. Attitudes are changing fast, and an old poll like that, as ridiculous as it was at the time, does not have much to do with today’s rapidly growing scientific skepticism regarding the claims of runaway, catastrophic AGW.
I note that no alarmist will take my challenge to produce a poll with questions and language that was mutually agreed to between scientific skeptics and AGW believers. I know something about polls. My organization bought polls for advertising purposes. Without the input of both sides, these polls are nothing but propaganda to support an agenda.
But go ahead and believe in them if you like. Believe that practically 100% of respondents all think and answer alike. And ignore contrary opinions like the OISM Petition, with tens of thousands of signers who directly contradict those push poll results with this clear statement:

“The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
[my emphasis]

Well over thirty thousand U.S. scientists have already signed that statement. They had to download it and print it out, then sign it, apply postage, and mail it in — no emails allowed. And only those with a degree in the physical sciences are accepted. They have to go to some effort to make their views known.
The fact that the alarmist contingent is now reduced to citing ginned-up push polls of 500 respondents in order to support their beliefs should tell folks all they need to know about the lack of any credible CAGW evidence.

DublD
November 3, 2009 8:05 pm

Phil Clarke, here’s a poll for you or any scientist in the world:
Define global mean temperature?
Can you measure it accurately and prove it?
100% of Global Warming alarmists will answer the first one differently and the second one “no”.
My straw man can beat up your straw man…

Joel Shore
November 3, 2009 8:44 pm

Smokey says:

That poll Joel Shore was referring to was done well before a British judge ruled that Al Gore’s movie was based on a pack of lies. Attitudes are changing fast, and an old poll like that, as ridiculous as it was at the time, does not have much to do with today’s rapidly growing scientific skepticism regarding the claims of runaway, catastrophic AGW.

What is clear from this description is that you are living in a fantasy world, immersed in an echo chamber and are, frankly, quite out-of-touch with what the scientific community is actually saying, hearing, or listening to.

I note that no alarmist will take my challenge to produce a poll with questions and language that was mutually agreed to between scientific skeptics and AGW believers.

What did Rumsfeld say, something like, “You go to war with the army that you have, not the one you’d like to have”? One could always imagine the ideal poll but the fact is that we have polls that are available and none of us is personally equipped to actually organize and conduct a poll of this sort. What you don’t seem to comprehend is the weight of the accumulated evidence. First, one has all the scientific organizations making their statements…So, you have to posit that all those scientific organizations have been hijacked. Not ridiculous for one or two organizations but pretty far-fetched when it gets to be pretty much all of them! Your argument is like saying that flipping a coin 100 times and getting all heads doesn’t provide strong evidence that the coin is not fair because it is actually quite likely that a fair coin would give you heads on a single flip.
Then you have polls…So maybe one particular poll isn’t perfect but you have several and they back up what we already know from the statements by the scientific organizations and the fact that there has been no organization whose membership has revolted and actually elected “skeptics” to better represent their views. In fact, the only revolt that I know of that has resulted in a significant change of a climate change statement was when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (a group whose members have a significant economic incentive to be “skeptical”) had enough of their members complain about their “skeptical” statement being an embarrassment and well out of the scientific mainstream that they changed it to be basically non-committal.

But go ahead and believe in them if you like. Believe that practically 100% of respondents all think and answer alike. And ignore contrary opinions like the OISM Petition, with tens of thousands of signers who directly contradict those push poll results with this clear statement: …
Well over thirty thousand U.S. scientists have already signed that statement. They had to download it and print it out, then sign it, apply postage, and mail it in — no emails allowed. And only those with a degree in the physical sciences are accepted. They have to go to some effort to make their views known.

That is precious! You label a poll conducted by a reputable polling organization at the behest of an organization who has gotten considerable funding from Right Wing organizations like Scaife as a “push poll” because it didn’t sufficiently bias the poll to get the result you wanted, and then you cite the Oregon Petition? Are you serious?!? It’s beyond being a “push poll”…It isn’t a poll at all. It is like a old Soviet-style election where the only vote you can give is a “Yes” vote (after being bombarded with propaganda) and then they tell you how many voted “Yes”. And, your naive description of how it worked is a little off-base. Let me quote physicist Robert Park’s more accurate description of how signatures were solicited ( http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn080803.html ):

One of the purported abuses cited in the minority staff report involved the insertion into an EPA report of a reference to a paper by Soon and Baliunas that denies global warming (WN 1 Aug 03). To appreciate its significance, we need to go back to March of 1998. We all got a petition card in the mail urging the government to reject the Kyoto accord (WN 13 Mar 98). The cover letter was signed by “Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences.” Enclosed was what seemed to be a reprint of a journal article, in the style and font of Proceedings of the NAS. But it had not been published in PNAS, or anywhere else. The reprint was a fake. Two of the four authors of this non- article were Soon and Baliunas. The other authors, both named Robinson, were from the tiny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in Cave Junction, OR. The article claimed that the environmental effects of increased CO2 are all beneficial. There was also a copy of Wall Street Journal op-ed by the Robinsons (father and son) that described increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as “a wonderful and unexpected gift of the industrial revolution.” There was no indication of who had paid for the mailing. It was a dark episode in the annals of scientific discourse.

Oh, and by the way, even the Oregon petition website itself doesn’t claim that all of the signers have a degree in the physical sciences ( http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php ). In fact, about 3000 are in biology / agriculture, 3000 in medicine, 10000 in engineering.

Joel Shore
November 3, 2009 8:57 pm

richardscourtney (18:18:40):

I gave a clear, factual and reasoned explanation of why human population is constrained by energy supply.

If you believe this is the case, then the logical thing to do is to work to help constrain the human population growth through family planning rather than saying that we should significantly degrade the environment of the planet in order to accommodate such unconstrained population growth. If we don’t humanely constrain the population (and our effect on the environment) then the environment will do it for us…and not so humanely.

So, preventing additional energy supply by preventing increased use of fossil fuels would certainly kill at least 2 billion people.

Even if we take your premises (which I don’t necessarily as I have discussed above), this conclusion does not follow at all unless you believe that the ONLY way to get sufficient energy supply is through fossil fuels. There are both other sources of energy and other ways to more efficiently use energy. As John Browne says:

If you say to people, ‘Do you want to develop the world and have a good living standard, or do you want a safer environment?’ people are terrified by the choice,” Browne said to me last spring. ”That is a failure of leadership.”

Heck, even ExxonMobil is pretty much singing the tune these days of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx Many of the posters on this site, like yourself, are so far out in Right Field that ExxonMobil looks like an organization of “socialist pinko radical tree-hugging environmental extremists” by comparison!

JAN
November 4, 2009 12:41 am

So, Joel, based on the information I gave earlier, which seems to be accepted by everyone here including you, have you managed to calculate yet the percentage of APS memebership that has signed the present and still effective APS statement on AGW?

Phil Clarke
November 4, 2009 12:59 am

Smokey: That poll Joel Shore was referring to was done well before a British judge ruled that Al Gore’s movie was based on a pack of lies.
is another factual error:
Survey: April 24, 2008
Judge Barton ruled Inconvenient Truth suitable for distribution to UK schools, on 10th OCtober 2007.

richardscourtney
November 4, 2009 2:42 am

Joel Shore:
You say:
“If we don’t humanely constrain the population (and our effect on the environment) then the environment will do it for us”.
I say
the only way to “humanely” constrain the human population is to make people rich.
Three methods to halt human population growth have been tried; i.e.
1. Culling,
2. Starvation (of food, water and/or energy supply),
3. Provision of affluence.
In this thread you are advocating methods 1 and 2. But only method 3 has been demonstrated to work, and methods 1 and 2 have never succeeded.
You are arguing that deprivation of energy should be the method used to “constrain the population”. And you attempt to pretend this can be done “humanely” by advocating “birth control”. The hypocrisy of that pretence compounds the evil of your argument.
The methods you advocate have been tried in the past; e.g.
eugenics in many places,
gas chambers in Nazi-occupied Europe,
a ‘one-child policy’ in China,
‘ethnic cleansing’ in Bosnia,
etc.
These methods kill people but they have never managed to halt population growth. And the reason for their failure is known.
Human population expands to enable the old to be supported by the young.
Poor peoples need as many young as possible for that support.
Rich people can be supported by their resources other than their offspring and, therefore, the effect of many children is a net cost for them.
So, as nations develop they gain sufficient affluence that their birth rates drop. Developed countries have achieved such affluence that they are failing to replenish their populations; indeed, they are needing to import people to sustain their economies.
Affluence requires abundant energy supply. And, at present, the only sources of abundant energy supply are fossil fuels and nuclear power.
But you assert that the world’s poor should be kept poor and be culled by starving them of the energy supply they need to survive. And you promote this genocide (of an unprecedented magnitude) as being for the benefit of “the” environment.
People are more important than your mythical notion of “the” environment.
Since you assert that we need to “constrain the population” to support “the” environment, I point out that there is a simple way for you to reduce human population by one. You could remove yourself from existence: this would enable a poor child in the Third World to survive and s/he would have a smaller ‘carbon footprint’ than you so there would be net benefit to “the” environment.
However, we both know you will not do that because advocates of genocide always choose to kill other people.
Richard
Reply: Before Joel Screams bloody murder! Where are the moderators? I would like to note that I thought long and hard on this and decided it should stand as is. ~ charles the moderator

November 4, 2009 4:09 am

Phil Clarke (00:59:52) is wrong again.
From the article:

“Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society…”

The push poll results were in six months before the judge ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth” was based on a pack of lies.
It seems that Phil Clarke’s level of reading comprehension caused him to confuse the date of the article with the date the push poll was taken.

November 4, 2009 4:43 am

I see that Joel Shore is still attempting to co-opt the skeptics’ term “echo chamber”, which has been used consistently to refer to blogs like realclimate, which censors posts that contradict their CO2=CAGW belief system.
WUWT does not censor, therefore WUWT is not an echo chamber. QED.
Echo chamber blogs like realclimate are censoring blogs, where their red faced, spittle flecked arm-wavers constantly tell each other the same debunked, wacky theories over and over. Thus, the ‘echo chamber.’ Pretty soon they convince each other to become true believers, because all they hear is the same globaloney from other folks who believe, without any credible evidence, that a tiny trace gas is going to cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
Then a few of them come over here to try and convert scientific skeptics to their beliefs — but skeptics are simply asking for any solid evidence for their belief that CO2 will cause catastrophic AGW. Skeptics question; that’s their job [and every honest scientist is a true skeptic]. Of course, since there is no empirical evidence to back up CAGW, that explains the lack of converts to the alarmists’ dwindling camp of true believers.
But it’s very nice that Joel acknowledges our original thinking here by trying to shift the meaning of ‘echo chamber’. George Orwell would understand. Too bad Joel failed the challenge to show us an honest poll, though. Without an honest poll where both sides agree on the wording of the questions, we’ll just have to go with the OISM Petition statement signed by 30,000+ scientists: “There is no convincing scientific evidence” of CAGW. None.
Without any verifiable evidence, it’s obvious that the alarmist arm-wavers are trying to sell everyone a pig in a poke. Joel needs to go back to his echo chamber and tell ’em we’re not buying. And the general public is beginning to see their scam, too.

Roger Knights
November 4, 2009 5:58 am

If a poll of scientists on CAWG is conducted, it should include a half-dozen fairly simple knowledge-testing questions so that the degree of belief / disbelief in CAWG can be correlated with the degree of knowledge / ignorance of the topic.

Back2Bat
November 4, 2009 10:59 am

Reply: Before Joel Screams bloody murder! Where are the moderators? I would like to note that I thought long and hard on this and decided it should stand as is. ~ charles the moderator
Charles, you can snip me to death if you wish but Richard says it all. Congratulations on a good call on an EXCELLENT comment!

Phil Clarke
November 4, 2009 2:12 pm

I do indeed stand corrected, thank you. However I find it implausible that Judge Burton’s ruling on the failed legal action would have swayed the opinion of many pollees against the movie, as he was of the opinion that it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film … It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, and I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:”Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
Joel is right to find the dismissing of the ‘inconvenient’ results of professionally-produced polls followed by the citing of the Oregon Petition pretty hilarious. They may have tightened things up recently, however in 2001 Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages
That’s right – 10% of the qualified signatories had no knowledge of how their names got on there! Currently more than half of the signatories are primarily engineers rather than scientists, then there are the medical doctors, chiropractors, vetinarians etc etc. Of the tens of millions who apparently could sign the thing, 31,000 (over a decade) is a totally unpersuasive drop in the ocean. ‘Skeptic’ magazine concluded through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion.” Now THAT is what I call skepticism.
Polls are one method of divining scientific opinion, but a literature review is better.
The sample : ‘abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”‘
The analysis : ‘The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position’
The result : ‘75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.’
which chimes rather well with the polls cited by Joel and myself.

Joel Shore
November 4, 2009 4:16 pm

Back2Bat says:

Charles, you can snip me to death if you wish but Richard says it all. Congratulations on a good call on an EXCELLENT comment!

By my count, the term “alarmist” has been used 13 times in this thread (not counting by me or someone quoting me) and yet when Richard Courtney says something that is not only alarmist, but has absolutely no scientific support whatsoever, and is moreover slanderous (accusing me…and presumably anybody who supports any constraints whatsoever on his favorite energy sources, including the CEO of BP…of being an “advocate of genocide”), the only comment from the “peanut gallery” is one that cheers him on!?! That seems pretty pathetic to me.
Where are the people here who really object to alarmism, fear-mongering, and slander as opposed to those objecting to well-founded science that goes against their own preconceptions and prejudices?
REPLY: Joel when I see you on another forum defending against the hateful and foul labels that have been applied to me personally and to this forum, I’ll take your concerns about the mild word “alarmist” seriously. – Anthony Watts

Joel Shore
November 4, 2009 4:35 pm

richardscourtney said:

In this thread you are advocating methods 1 and 2. But only method 3 has been demonstrated to work, and methods 1 and 2 have never succeeded.
You are arguing that deprivation of energy should be the method used to “constrain the population”. And you attempt to pretend this can be done “humanely” by advocating “birth control”. The hypocrisy of that pretence compounds the evil of your argument.

No. I am arguing that family planning and other educational and humanitarian means should be used to help control population growth. and, I am arguing that although energy is important, it is not so important that we should sacrifice our environment and endanger the welfare of both human civilization and many ecosystems in order to keep certain forms of it artificially cheap.

And, at present, the only sources of abundant energy supply are fossil fuels and nuclear power.

That is because of the fact that fossil fuels have been heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly (by their costs not being internalized) has not allowed the proper market incentives to reward efficiency and other forms of energy. (And, I am not against nuclear, although I don’t think it should be subsidized, but rather should be allowed to compete on a level playing field where fossil fuels are priced to more closely reflect their real costs.)

But you assert that the world’s poor should be kept poor and be culled by starving them of the energy supply they need to survive.

No. Why don’t you go and argue with Smokey who claims this is all a sinister plot by China and other developing nations to equalize the world’s wealth? Maybe you two can get together and decide if I am advocating further impoverishment of the world’s poor or wealth transfer from the rich to the poor. Or maybe, you can agree to use one argument on even days and the other on odd days.

And you promote this genocide (of an unprecedented magnitude) as being for the benefit of “the” environment.
People are more important than your mythical notion of “the” environment.

Perhaps this comes as news to you but the “environment” is not a mythical notion and people live in the environment and are very dependent on the benefits that it provides.

However, we both know you will not do that because advocates of genocide always choose to kill other people.

Is this the latest strategy of the coal industry that you are a part of ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney ), to accuse those who advocate for any constraints on CO2 as advocates of genocide? Well, you guys have certainly chosen a winning strategy with that one! I guess there is a long history of industries lobbying to try to claim their own self-interest to be the common good, but this is a bit over-the-top even by those standards!

Reply to  Joel Shore
November 4, 2009 5:31 pm

“Real costs” Joel?
Do you really want to go there? Can you imagine what the real costs of a windfarm are if you take into account mining, manufacturing, installation, transportation, electrical distribution requirements, land contamination, view spoilage, gearbox upkeep, wildlife massacres, standby generation capacity, and much more I’m sure I’m forgetting.

Richard
November 4, 2009 4:58 pm

the_Butcher (16:24:40) :
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7613/alcooling.jpg
Thats very good.
Joel shore your arguments are flawed beyond belief. And you seem to be most concerned about this post as all you alarmists can do is appeal to authority.
So a challenge to authority must be very disturbing to you.

Back2Bat
November 4, 2009 5:10 pm

“the only comment from the “peanut gallery” is one that cheers him on!?! “ Joel
When this “peanut” turns out to be right won’t that be something? My opinion is based on everything from Al Gores’s obesity to the statistical impossibility of this Universe plus a lot I learned on this site. If I am wrong about CO2 then I am wrong about everything. I find that statistically impossible.
My thanks to Anthony and his gang though. Without this site, I would not have firmly made up my mind.

Joel Shore
November 4, 2009 5:40 pm

REPLY: Joel when I see you on another forum defending against the hateful and foul labels that have been applied to me personally and to this forum, I’ll take your concerns about the mild word “alarmist” seriously. – Anthony Watts

Anthony, what I was objecting to was being labeled by Richard Courtney as an “advocate of genocide” and being told that I advocate such methods as “gas chambers in Nazi-occupied Europe” and “‘ethnic cleansing’ in Bosnia”. Given that some of my own relatives, as close as great aunts and uncles, were killed in the Holocaust, I think my response has been relatively restrained considering the circumstances.
My point about the word “alarmist” is simply that people seem to have a double standard where carefully-sourced statements based on painstaking scientific research are dubbed “alarmist” while wild claims involving the “genocide” of 2 billion people that are based on no research whatsoever are not even objected to. Believe me, if I was personally offended about being called “alarmist” on a daily basis, I would have left this site long long ago.

Phil Clarke
November 4, 2009 6:05 pm

Hateful speech and boorishness are of course to be universally condemned, however it sets an interesting precedent if one must first seek out and challenge every example of such elsewhere in order to avoid being the recipient of such here. No?
And if one must first ‘clean up’ the internet how about raising standards of honesty while we’re about it? A modest suggestion: before we take Mr Courtney seriously we should perhaps ask him to correct the various open letters and petitions where he signs himself Dr Richard Courtney, or Richard Courtney PhD. For example here or here . After all he has never actually been awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
It could of course, be a completely different Richard Courtney. Perhaps the man himself would take this opportunity to clear this up, is he the Dr Richard Courtney in this petition and open letter? Does he in fact, hold a Doctorate?
Or do we conclude that overstating one’s credentials in an attempt to influence public opinion is now acceptable?

Richard
November 4, 2009 6:05 pm

jeez (17:31:07) : “Real costs” Joel?
Do you really want to go there? Can you imagine what the real costs of a windfarm are if …

The champion country in windfarms is Spain. Held up as a shining example by Obama. No longer. Its broke thanks to its so called “green policies”