Reposted from Populartechnology.net by invitation
Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm.
Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)
Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” – Freeman Dyson
Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952), Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964), Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (1954–1956), Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1956–1958), Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1958–1988), Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965), Nobel Prize in Physics (1973), Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974), Member, National Academy of Science (1974), Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975), Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975), Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975), Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005), Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present)
Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.
“I’m a skeptic. …Global Warming it’s become a new religion. You’re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct; that’s the important part.” – Ivar Giaever
Robert Laughlin, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972), Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979), Fellow, IBM (1976-1978), Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (1979–1981), Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982–2004), Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1985–1989), E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986), Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989), Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1989–1993), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990), Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992–Present), Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998), Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003), President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006), President, Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (2004–2006)
Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.
“The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.” – Robert Laughlin
Edward Teller, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Karlsruhe (1928), Ph.D. Physics, University of Leipzig (1930), Research Associate, University of Leipzig (1929–1931), Research Associate, University of Göttingen (1931–1933), Rockefeller Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Copenhagen (1933–1934), Lecturer, London City College (1934), Professor of Physics, George Washington University (1935-1941), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (1942-1943), Group Leader, Manhattan Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1943-1946), Professor of Physics, University of Chicago (1946-1952), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1948), Assistant Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1949-1952), Developer, Hydrogen Bomb (1951), Founder, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1952), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1953-1975), Associate Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1954–1958), Harrison Medal (1955), Albert Einstein Award (1958), Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1958-1960), Professor, Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace, Stanford University (1960–1975), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Atomic Energy Commission (1962), Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution (1975-2003), Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1975–2003), National Medal of Science (1982), Presidential Medal of Freedom (2003), (Died: September 9, 2003)
Notable: Manhattan Project Member, Developer of the Hydrogen Bomb and Founder of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming–the jury is still out.” – Edward Teller
Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008)
Notable: Pioneer in the field of solid-state physics and President Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” – Frederick Seitz
Robert Jastrow, A.B. Physics, Columbia University (1944), A.M. Physics, Columbia University (1945), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1948), Adjunct Professor of Geophysics, Columbia University (1944–1982), Postdoctoral Fellow, Leiden University, Netherlands (1948-1949), Scholar, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1949-1950, 1953), Assistant Professor of Physics, Yale (1953-1954), Chief, NASA Theoretical Division (1958-61), Founding Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961-1981), NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1968), Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College (1981-1992), Chairman, Mount Wilson Institute (1992–2003), (Died: February 8, 2008)
Notable: Founding Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and hosted more than 100 CBS-TV network programs on space science.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” – Robert Jastrow
William Nierenberg, B.S. Physics, City College of New York (1939), M.A. Physics, Columbia University (1942), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1947), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Columbia SAM Laboratories (1942-1945), Instructor in Physics, Columbia University (1946–1948), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Michigan (1948–1950), Associate Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1950-1953), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1954–1965), Assistant Secretary General for Scientific Affairs, NATO (1960-1962), Director Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (1965-1986), Member, White House Task Force on Oceanography (1969-1970), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1971), Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971-1975), Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971–1978), Member, National Science Board (1972–1978, 1982–1988), Chairman, Advisory Council, NASA (1978-1982), Member, Space Panel, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council (1978–1984), Member, Council of the National Academy of Sciences (1979-1982), Chairman, Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, National Academy of Sciences (1980–1983), NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal (1982), (Died: September 10, 2000)
Notable: Manhattan Project Member and Director Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. …These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.” – William Nierenberg
Peer-Reviewed Climate Publications:
Can we control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
(Energy, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 287-291, September 1977)
– Freeman J. Dyson
Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars
(Nature, Volume 348, Number 6301, pp. 520-523, December 1990)
– Robert Jastrow
Evidence on the climate impact of solar variations
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1285-1295, December 1993)
– Robert Jastrow
Global warming: What does the science tell us?
(Energy, Volume 16, Issues 11-12, pp. 1331-1345, November-December 1991)
– Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz
Keeping cool on global warming
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp. 32-41, July 1992)
– Frederick Seitz, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow
Rebuttals:
A Rebuttal to “Jason and the Secret Climate Change War” (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)
Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)
Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)
Vanity Scare (TCS Daily)
References:
2008 – 58th Meeting of Nobel Laureates (PDF) (University of Hartford)
Do people cause global warming? (The Heartland Institute)
Heretical thoughts about science and society (Edge: The Third Culture)
Letter from Frederick Seitz (Petition Project)
The Planet Needs a Sunscreen (The Wall Street Journal)
What the Earth Knows (The American Scholar)
Sponsored IT training links:
If interested in JN0-400 certification then take advantage of 1z0-053 dumps and 642-746 mock test written by certified expert to help you pass real test on time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.







Anders L.,
Not one word from you about the statements of these scientists, just a mindless ad hominem attack. Is that the only response you’re capable of making?
Just for the record, what are your qualifications, vs the eminent physicists in the article? That will help us to figure out who to listen to: them? Or …you.
Testing Svensmark without an effective monitoring of global volcanic eruption volume/altitudes is useless…
Erik says:
July 25, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Reply; I originated none of the quotes in your post, link is OT.
Andrew30 says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:55 am
Reply; I am acquiring data for processing at this time, when I get it posted to the research area of my site we can all look at it. (Nice to see I am getting close enough to the truth to attract pro AGW hecklers)
Tallbloke has some of these data sets already posted…Try a through read of several of the latest posts, or for that matter the whole site, Education is the key to understanding, researching is where you find the combination of the information needed to further unlock the truth… keep looking at new things.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Onion (july 25, 2010 2:37pm)
Read all of my previous posts. I have no time for brainlessness.
Benjamin P. says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:20 am
Consensus among all these old dudes (and some of them dead dudes) must mean there are right? Right?
In the 60′s and early 70′s there were a bunch of old dudes who called Plate Tectonics a “religion” and “pseudoscience” and went to their graves denying plate tectonics.
I am not sure what this article is really trying to do? Science is not a populations contest. The screaming from the “deniers” about how consensus is meaning less in science makes this article even more baffling to show up here.
———————-
One of the puzzling things about Naomi Oreskes is that she is the historian par excellence of the whole plate tectonics story, and is well aware of the role of group-think and consensus in holding up scientific advance. Yet she turns around and uses consensus arguments to belittle those who question global warming ‘scientific’ alarmism. The point of this article on ‘old dudes’ is that independent, well formed, and respected minds reject the consensus. These individuals might not actually form a consensus in terms of the reasons for their rejection of AGW alarmism. The point of the article is that people like Naomi Oreskes and other CAGW proponents like to argue that no real scientist who has any value or respect rejects the theory of CAGW. I thought that was obvious.
anna v says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:16 am
Let me give you the list with links, of why the model predictions are falsified; the models that are used in the IPCC AR4 and by the governments who want to push a pyramid scheme of cap and trade, and reduce the western world to 19th century energy consumption.
__________________________________
I have recently asked if anyone has done any micro-climate studies , perhaps in the Sahara desert, to link CO2 changes to temperature. The Sahara has a very low humidity 4%-30% It would be an excellent place to correlate CO2, humidity, solar insolation and temperature data from the Atlantic all the way to the Nile in Egypt and study the effects of CO2, and water vapor on temperatures at the same latitude, elevation and solar insolation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sahara_satellite_hires.jpg
It would also be an excellent site for doing OTC -Open Top Container studies on the effect of CO2. http://www.sisef.it/iforest/show.php?id=544
With the billions of dollars spent it would seem someone would have done either of these two studies. I have often thought the assumption “CO2 is well mix in the atmosphere” was used to discourage this type of study. We know that water vapor can have local effects on temperature. If CO2 is supposed to be a big player in climate change it should have measurable effects if either a correlation study or open top container study is done.
This is what I have found so far:
Empirical relations for the determination of solar radiation in Ibadan, Nigeria
Junk science
Measured solar radiation in a Nigerian environment compared with predicted data
the structure, composition, dynamics and evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere
Land Use and Weather/Climate Issues
Ed Murphy says: July 25, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Testing Svensmark without an effective monitoring of global volcanic eruption volume/altitudes is useless…
Well, if a grand minimum clicks in, there is a large increase in cloud formations (with cosmic rays implicated in the droplets), and all this is followed by a drop in world temperatures by over 0.5C, we may not be able to quantify it exactly, but it would be the stuff of pretty darn strong general theory.
That’s got to be the most idiotic argument I’ve ever heard. So, because some people have bad habits that affect the people around them, those other people should just stay home. Makes perfect (non)sense.
re: James Sexton says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:58 am
James, THANK YOU for posting that most excellent parable. I don’t smoke, but respect the rights of those who do even tho I’ve seen its ravages with my own parents – but that parable is such an excellent description of where we are today as a nation and how we got here…. I’ve already passed it along. So, thanks again!
Oh, and fwiw… my father is 82, born in 1928. He started smoking when he was 15 or 16 years old. When I was young and we were discussing smoking, he told me that even back when he first started smoking they commonly called cigarettes either “coffin nails” or “cancer sticks.” Smoking’s relation to cancer has never been a secret. He’s utterly disgusted with the whole “second hand smoke causes cancer” meme tho, as am I.
evanmjones says: July 25, 2010 at 4:30 pm
“Well, if a grand minimum clicks in…”
If grand minimum happens then we are in a position to get a lot of data about a lot of things, and that will be great.
It is wishfull thinking but you know, I think that it would be wonderful if somewhere, some backyard astronomer using an old 10 foot satellite dish and a comodore-64 rigged up as a low grade radio-telescope looking at some insignificant part of the night sky noticed an interstellar cross wind or some such thing. Coming from only one direction, something that was the key to cooling puzzle, the Earths default state; but had been held back at a the Heliopause by the active Sun. Invisible and waiting for the Sun to recede to it could tunnel through and resume its affect once again.
Something no one had thought of or predicted or suspected; like discovery used to be, no money, just passion, interest and wonder.
‘Hmm, that’s interesting, I wonder….’
If only.
Benjamin P. says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:20 am
“…In the 60′s and early 70′s there were a bunch of old dudes who called Plate Tectonics a “religion” and “pseudoscience” and went to their graves denying plate tectonics….”
Yeah, I was a grad student in the middle of that, and organized a Journal Club meeting in which the President of the AAPG – a noted denier – gave his presentation to, approximately, every geologist in Northern California. It nearly erupted in a riot.
Nevertheless, the skeptics in that case had no unifying theory (ok, the “geosynclinal theory” which basically said: Hey, geosynclines form now and then, but more than that we do not know). The plate tectonicists beat them over the head with data from geophysics (magnetic stripes; measured seismic epicenters following a plane down below convergence zones; remanent magnetism showing how rocks had been formed in places far away from their present locations); isotope studies (no oceanic crust older than so many millions of years); geologic mapping; paleontological studies; and on and on. If any died still in disbelief (can you prove that?) then they have my pity.
Here, in this global warming thing, we “skeptics” haven’t been hit with the kitchen sink. In fact, much of what the proponents throw at us can be shown to be [bs]. They have a mantra that sounds like geologists of old: “Geosynclinal Theory”. Whatever you think it is, is. No arguments, please.
Hilarious.
May I add my humble voice?
“AGW is rubbish !”
On second-hand smoke:
The metastudy that supposedly proved that second-hand smoke increases mortality had 30 studies they could use. 11 of them suggested increased mortality, 18 showed no significant change in mortality, and the 30th showed a decrease in mortality. However, that 30th study was larger than all other 29 studies combined. So the FDA ingored that study completely.
The range of confidence was 3000 deaths per year, plus or minus 6,000. So it not only did not make the 95th percentile, it didn’t even make the 80th percentile.
On the other hand, second-hand smoke and morbidity is easily proven. Morbidity, as measured in health costs, is at least 10% more for those non-smokers who are exposed regularly to second-hand smoke (spouse or job). Days off due to illness is also greater than 10% more. These numbers are significant at the 99.9% level.
Raw temperatures are up 0.25 degrees in the last 100 years. Removing urban temperatures, the raw temperatures are slightly down (less than 0.30 degrees). However, the stations used in global studies are almost all urban airport stations, which have raw temperature changes of 0.25 degrees. Since airports and vicinity are less than 0.1% of earth, the numbers would appear to average out to cooling over the last 100 years. Of course, ocean temperatures need to be in the mix to draw any meaningful conclusions (specific heat etc.).
I remember a book called “The Limits To Growth”, published in 1970, which was required reading at the college I attended. The most striking detail about their graphs was that none of them had a defined vertical axis. Forty years later, the other striking detail is how wrong they were. Birth rates are down, except in southwest Asia, pollution is down, so much so that the political class has had to invent a new pollutant, CO2, and make extravagant claims about its danger.
Jeff Alberts says:
July 25, 2010 at 5:12 pm
If you don’t want to be around smoke stay away from places where smokers congregate.
——————–
We already did the staying away part, Jeff. That’s why the rules got changed. Only about 26% of the adult population smokes, and businesses can’t get by with ignoring the other 74%, who have been voting through their non-attendance.
I think the solution is for all businesses to be required to post a sign at their entrances saying either “smoking allowed” or “no smoking allowed.” The market will take care of the problem. I’d have no problem avoiding smoke, and could still go into a smoking allowed business if I really needed to do so. Smokers would have places to go where smoking is allowed. Win-win. Except for the health-controllers of course.
Ahem … bad example; yet another consensus-arrived at conclusion … plus, big-monied HOT fusion could have none of that ‘cold’ stuff …
Double check my assertions – research continues in this field as there are yet-unexplained phenomena (excess heat and other effects) taking place … none other than the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California had been quietly studying cold fusion continually since 1989 …
.
@ur momisuglyJeff Alberts says:
July 25, 2010 at 10:12 am
You said, “I don’t believe scond hand smoke causes cancer, unless you have the same exposure as a smoker, then maybe. But it IS annoying, and can be harmful to those with adverse respiratory conditions. It’s a habit that involves others against their will, and that’s why it should be banned in public places.”
I used smoking as a parallel to what is occurring today and what has happened in the past with regards to the AGW issue. Theo Goodwin @ur momisugly July 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm rightly observed the political bastardization of science during the smoking debate by statists. The AGW debate is a direct assault upon individual liberties and freedoms. As Mr. Spence aptly pointed out, “We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.” and “That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression.”
Your argument, “It’s a habit that involves others against their will, and that’s why it should be banned in public places.” is fallacious. To my knowledge, no one in this nation has ever been forced to inhale second-hand smoke in a public place. In this nation, we are free to move about as we choose, we have a right to freely associate with whomever we choose. No one was ever “forced” to inhale second-hand smoke. They did it willfully and freely. The state of Kansas recently enacted a ban on smoking in public places. Shortly thereafter, I had the occasion to venture to a local tavern to shoot a few games of pool. Sure enough, the ban was being enforced in the tavern much to the chagrin of the owners. As we all took turns smoking outside the tavern, we took a head count of smokers vs. non-smokers. The count was 15 to 5. Of the 5 non-smokers, 2 were spouses of smokers, 2 were pool players who have for years endured second-hand smoke without complaint and will again when we shoot at a private club(exempt from the ban, for now) and 1 was a regular at the tavern who again, inhaled second-hand smoke for years without complaint. No one in that tavern contrived, voted for, or otherwise wished for the ban to occur.
Like the cigarette, our liberties and freedoms have been extinguished. In this particular instance we lost our liberties and freedoms to save someone from a hypothetical annoyance.
“It’s a habit that involves others against their will, and that’s why it should be banned in public places.” That statement has never been true in this country. With thoughts expressed such as that, it is a small wonder why we’re in the shape we’re in. As I said earlier, “…..I get the bonus of being ostracized from certain segments of society which has a very pleasant outcome for people such as myself.” I’ll stand for liberties and freedoms, while you can decide for what you stand.
There you go again ‘coat-racking’ to the extreme … reading your words, I get the idea we should just head back to the caves … and you offer no alternative, just the usual ‘populist’ moaning and complaining repeating the same mantra (in effect, if I may take it back a generation, “pointing out a ‘commie’ under every rock) …
We fought that battle and WON – REMEMBER?
.
I think we may be getting to the crux of the issue; a) a tendency to attribute wrongful ‘things’ to grand conspiratorial intent rather fallible humans (human error) or human wants and desires (this includes greed et al); this might certainly disqualify someone from further advancement.
b) new minds, new perspectives are required in the sciences and in all branches of science (any field, really) … even Einstein ran into a brick wall as it were with trying to take his theories beyond what observational and experimental physics were indicating …
c) The continued coat-racking of issues not directly tied to subject matter in the thread: is this a product of bitterness, vengefulness at not having achieved a level of success one ‘expected’? A striking out as it were at an ‘America’ too dumb to ‘get it’? I have a level of faith that we will succeed, naysayers (much like yourself) notwithstanding … with regard to science: the immutable laws of nature (and of God) stand regardless of what any one individual, or any group of individuals believe or would like to believe … do you not have that kind of faith anymore?
It would seem not …
.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 25, 2010 at 12:37 pm
You give them too much credit. Models are not up to the level of hypotheses and cannot be used to make predictions and, for that reason, cannot be falsified. For models, the best that you can say is that they are consistent with what is observed in the world. The AGW models have a long way to go before they are so much as consistent with what we know about the world. They are incomplete analytical tools at this time. When they are consistent with what we know about the world, some decades in the future, then they will be good analytical tools. They can be used to teach us all that is implicit in our assumptions. But they will never be hypotheses and useful for prediction.
They are treated as a theory with outcomes that impact on the world not only by their creators, but by politicians the world over who use them saying the science is settled.
After all, all theories are modeled, mathematics is a modeling tool.
Any theory, from general relativity to electrodynamics can be treated as a black box: input the hypothesis and axioms output predictions.
Climate models are not different , except in the levels of trivial complexity and multiplicity of assumptions; and they are being used as predictive oracles, and they can be falsified, and in this case they are.
Falsification means the assumptions built in the models have to be redone/rethought from scratch, and the IPCC results cannot be used as definitive predictions of the future of the earth, which is what most governments are doing.
Gail Combs says:
July 25, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I have recently asked if anyone has done any micro-climate studies , perhaps in the Sahara desert, to link CO2 changes to temperature. The Sahara has a very low humidity 4%-30% It would be an excellent place to correlate CO2, humidity, solar insolation and temperature data from the Atlantic all the way to the Nile in Egypt and study the effects of CO2, and water vapor on temperatures at the same latitude, elevation and solar insolation.
Yes, you are right, I have often pointed out the deserts as green house poor regions , both to refute the well mixed business ( why do they get so cold at night then?) and various exaggerations of the “greenhouse ” hypothesis . They should be studied but I guess such proposals would be like proposing to Lysenko carefully controlled experiments of seed generation.
On the other hand, the fact that CO2 has no different heat capacity than the rest of the gases in the atmosphere and no magic heat retention properties has been amply proven in the open market. It is decades since we are sold double and triple level glass windows for insulation without loss of view. Have you heard of anybody using CO2 between the layers, if CO2 is so magical? It is N2 as far as I know that is between the layers.
In any group there are going to be some who will worry about *something*. The AGW alarmists are simply this bunch grown old. Just live folks…..
I would like to thank Meremortal and James Sexton for their comments. In truth I really don’t care about cigarette smoking in the same way I don’t really care about abortion…it doesn’t affect me. In another sense I care deeply about both issues as they relate to liberty.
My practice is in the field of healthcare so I’m obviously biased against smoking. But I’m something of stickler for statistical proof. To date there exists no statistically valid evidence to link second hand smoke to health problems (the plural of anecdote is not data).
I think it’s an excellent idea to have non-smoking bars and restaurants. I like that there is no smoking in most airports but I applaud Atlanta for providing “reasonable accommodation” to smokers by means of having glassed-in negative pressure smoking areas available. If a bar or restaurant wishes to cater to smokers (and those not offended by tobacco smoke) they should be allowed to do so. Non-smokers (and those easily offended) are free to go elsewhere. The converse is also true. If a place of business is posted “no smoking”, then go elsewhere unless you agree to comply.
I’m not defending smoking. I’m defending freedom. The second hand smoke imbroglio simply demonstrates how easily “science” can be co-opted to further a political agenda. It stinks and it’s annoying, but nobody’s health is really at risk except the smoker. A specious claim that CO2 will cause doom and gloom could very well destroy the economy of the modern world. Only those who collect the taxes for “fair redistribution” and the eco-geek believers in the myth win.
Dr Dave says
My practice is in the field of healthcare so I’m obviously biased against smoking. But I’m something of stickler for statistical proof. To date there exists no statistically valid evidence to link second hand smoke to health problems (the plural of anecdote is not data).
If second hand smoking causes cancer, that’s just rubbing it in. It’s akin to be assaulted. Your clothes smell, your sinuses clog, lungs are irritated and eyes tear. It’s obnoxious. This is the issue, regarding simple observation, not scientific analysis.
Would it be okay if I pinned you down and farted on your face? It probably doesn’t cause cancer so under your logic you have no right to object.
re: Jim says: July 25, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Hi Jim,
I have no idea wrt the merits of ‘cold fusion’ – but I just want to point out that an agency or even noted government/military group researching something for ages doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing is ‘real’ or will pan out. Look at the current situation with AGW research.
toby says:
July 25, 2010 at 7:30 am
Given the age of these august gentlemen, some of whom unfortunately sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies, one cannot help thinking of the remark of Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
The question is not about how many eminent old physicists are contrarians, but how many young ones?_______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
No they are not “Shills”….. They were paid for their scientific expertise.
As concerns Tobacco. The science doesn’t support the theory that Tobacco smoking ALONE causes cancer….. Otherwise ALL smokers would develop lung cancer and all non smokers wouldn’t.
The truth is that few smokers develop lung cancer as pertains to their demographic, while many non smokers DO develop lung cancer as pertains to theirs…. Thus the meme of ” Passive smoke” became derigour so as to present a “legal” arguement, but not a “scientific” one. In that regard it was successful.
Smoke of all kinds is bad for the lungs, but the mechanism for developing cancer and tobacco smoke is not understood nor explained in any science. One can easily explain the effects and mechanisms for the toxicity of cyanide on biology, from whoa to go. But cannot even approch that level of detail in explaining the carcinogenic effect of tobacco smoke.
Don’t get me wrong. Smoking damages the lungs, is a bad habit and is addictive because of the substance called nicotine….. But it is not significant in it’s effect as pertains to Lung cancer.