UPDATE5: (Saturday 10/16/10) It has been a week, and I think this piece has been well distributed, so I’m putting it in regular queue now and it will gradually scroll off the page.
UPDATE4: (Friday 10/15/10) APS member Roger Cohen comments here on Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth op/ed.
UPDATE3: (Friday 10/15/10) Andrew Revkin, after a week (I sent him this story last Friday) of digging around to get just the right rebuttal, responds here at Dot Earth.
UPDATE2: (Wednesday 10/13/10) This just in…click for the story.
APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation
UPDATE: (Saturday 10/9/10) Since this came in late Friday, many of our weekday WUWT readers might not see this important story, so I’m sticking it to the top for a couple of days. New stories will appear just below this one, please scroll down to see them. – Anthony
(Originally posted on 10/8/10 ) We’ve previously covered the APS here, when I wrote:
While Copenhagen and its excesses rage, a quiet revolution is starting.
Indeed, not so quiet now. It looks like it is getting ugly inside with the public airing of the resignation of a very prominent member who writes:
I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
…
In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.- Hal Lewis
Below is his resignation letter made public today, via the GWPF.
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post.
Readers, we can do this. Here’s the place at WaPo to ask for it. For anyone writing to the WaPo, the national@washpost.com, is the national news editorial desk. The Post’s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, is the readers’ representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.
Spread the word on other blogs. Let’s see if they have enough integrity to provide a counterpoint. – Anthony
======================================
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
==========================================================
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
OT Anthony better check if true, but it seems that it may be Wegman that may be doing the suing rather than the other way round re Rabbitman see Lucias latest. cheers
Request denied:
From: “Rachel Manteuffel”
Date: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:49 PM
Subject: Your op-ed submission to The Post
Thank you for your recent op-ed submission. The column was carefully
reviewed, but unfortunately The Post is not able to publish this piece.
You can submit future articles using our web submission form at
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/opeds/submit/.
Thanks,
Editorial Department
The Washington Post
Unfortunately me thinks the only way they is gonna be stopped is by voting out the dems (even though I usually vote dem)
“”” Stephan says:
October 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Unfortunately me thinks the only way they is gonna be stopped is by voting out the dems (even though I usually vote dem) “””
Well Stephen; without making any political judgement in regard to your post (above) ; perhaps your statement tells the whole story.
Too many people doing what they “usually do”;l evidently without any critical thinking involved. And the result is the total train wreck that we have in the Nation’s Capitol (USA); and likewise situations around the world.
As I wrestle myself with the some of the basic science of these issues; I constantly ask myself; am I just too ignorant of the science to see the picture; which seems to me as clear as my face is in a mirror.
When I read the words of people with the stature of Hal Lewis; it simply reinforces my belief, that I am not deluding myself; and even though I may not understand some details at the most fundamental levels; my basic instincts are on the right track.
Personally I’m convinced that the basic science of “climatism” is quite wrong; and the sky is not falling.
Which is not to say that climate won’t change; it always has and it always will, and there is nothing much we can do to influence that.
But we can certainly wreak terrible havoc in other ways; by following the path of stupidity; which is really worse than simple stupidity; because it is directed stupidity for political ends.
Well said George E. Smith.
California’s Green Nightmare
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/11/californias-green-nightmare
[Snip. Calling our readers “deniers” again. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
A resignation is rarely a major news story in most cases. If the Secretary of State resigns, it’s news regardless of the reason. If an Assistant Undersecretary for the Zimbabwean economic desk resigns, no one notices, no matter his resume. But if said heretofore unknown bureaucrat resigns because he learns his agency is subverting the Constitution to further the Secretary’s political/economic agenda, the resignation becomes the news vehicle to demonstrate his sincerity, and the seriousness of the underlying charge. The fact that Hal Lewis is resigning is news worthy because he is putting his reputation on the line to criticize his organization’s violation of its own constitution in support of the attempts of its leaders to support the CAGW gravy train. Since when is the squelching of CAGW dissent by a major science organization not news?
If the MSM could still kill a news story simply by ignoring it, there would never have been a “climategate.” The greatest virtue of the new alternative media is that the ABCNBCCBSCNNAPWashintionPostNewYorkTimes can no longer keep information from the public at large.
Stephan says:
October 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Unfortunately me thinks the only way they is gonna be stopped is by voting out the dems (even though I usually vote dem)
Sorry to hear that.
I applaud his courage. Speaking of physics global warming as it is depicted by the mods
I applaud his courage. Speaking of physics global warming as it is depicted by the climate scientists is false because they are based upon a false assumption: caloric theory.
Hockey stick assumes little to no buffering. I went from being a supporter of Mann to also calling for his resignation as well.
Yikes. Carbon just won the Nobel Physics prize.
Why physics shows global warming is self limiting:
Here is what the experts in thermodynamics say with full references at the end:
Classical thermodynamics was founded in the 19th century by: Carnot,Clausius (who based on Joule’s work disproved caloric theory) Joule, Helmholz, Kelvin, and Gibbs, amomg others.
In classical thermodynamics: only concerned with equlibrium states and many intro textbooks also only provide a treatment of equilibrium states. Idealized reversible processes that take place at an extremely slow rate, are only discussed like: dS = dQ/T. There is no denotion of time.
Modern thermodynamics was constructed by Lars Onsager, Theophile De Donder Ilya Prigogine and others in the 20th century.
In irreversible processes: dS is the change of S in time inrterval dt. This change is entropy is written as the sum of two terms:
dS = deS + diS where deS is the entropy change due to exchange of energy and matter and diS is the entropy change due to irreversible processes.
diS /dt is always positive in accordance with the second law.
Heat transfer is an irreversible process. In fact the evolution of a system towards a state of equilibrium is due to irrerversible processes. Heat only goes from a high temperature to a lower temperature at all times (See at the end the actual A,B and C explanation BPL attempts elsewhere).
Ofcourse for non-equilibrium system like the planet earth where temperature is not uniform we must use the terms energy and entropy.
Clausius stated:
1.) Die Energie der Welt ist Konstant. (modern thermodynamics upholds this)
2.) Die Entropie der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu. (Also upheld)
These two laws are laws of experience and no matter how many people have tried to find exceptions to them no one has been able to. Now in relation to statistical thermodynamics/mechanics we can do see some funky things that seem to violate the laws but they actually do not but that is not relevant to discussing the atmosphere and LW or SR.
From those two statements by Clausius then we get 4 fundamental equations from Gibbs who is called to this day the father of thermodynamics. From those 4 fundamental equations we can drive more than 50,000,000 equations relating to the thermodynamics properties of a given system all using quite simple mathematics. Most of the 50,000,000 equations are not of much help but many are useful in describing and predicting properties of chemical systems. That is chemical systems in terms of thermodynamics that provide empirical results but are difficult to replicate in a lab. Let it be clear that the laws of thermodynamics were founded based upon experiments and have never been shown to be violated.
Let it also be clear that the level of exactness of these two laws of experience have very few equals in all of science in all disciplines. The amazing amount of mathematical relationships that must be true if these two laws are true is also very unique in all of science as well.
The fundamental thermodynamic variables are: pressure (p) temperature (T) initial energy (U) and entropy (S). (side note: all gas laws fail at some point in high or lowe pressure and high or low temps, etc… so th real gas laws are not always better or “superior” to the ideal gas laws, but that is for a later time). Then there are the derived variables: H=U+ pV, A=U-TS and G=U+pV-Ts. p and t are intensive variables and all the others are extensive. Extensive variables can be made by dividing the number of moles (n) to give molar quantities: Vm, Um, Sm, Hm, Am, and Gm.
Gibbs equations are ingenious and it is a shame he took his life and they involve U and S which are fundamental thermodynamic variables. For the universe:
the summation of: du = 0
the summation of dS > 0.
du=sigmaq + sigmaw
ds > sigmaq/T.
Now correct if me if I am wrong but does not atmospheric, ocean, terrestial and gas dynamics involve: heat, temperature, work, pressure in general and one or more of each variable at a time?
Okay I am not just going to write out or derive equations alone so let me back up a bit now.
The invention of the steam engine gave birth to the science of thermodynamics. It converted heat into mechanical motion meaning heat is used to perform work. At firt thermodynamics was all about the study of heat and its ability to generate motion. Then later it merged with a larger subject which was of energy and its interconversion into one form and another and then later it evolved still further to study transformation of any matter in general and motion generated by q being a consequence. Energy and entropy are the two key elements of two laws.
When matter undergoes transformation the total energy of the system and its exterior is conserved but the total entropy can only increase. Albert Einstein himself remarked that thermodynamics were so capable of explaining so much phenomena that it would not overthrown in the context of the basic applications therein.
Three kinds of systems exist: isolated, closed and open. Though the earth is usually termed open due to radiation exchanges and minimal matter exchanges, some thermodynamics and physics textbooks consider many years of little to no matter exchange to consider it a closed system in that context. Obviously in terms of rediation transfer this planet is an open system otherwise the weather and temperature would be real different.
Finally the zeroeth law explains this:
If a system A is in thermal equilibrium with B and if B is in thermal equilibrium with system C then it follows that A is in thermal equilibrium with system C. That is for temperature uniformity.
BPL are you PBL from PPRUNE?
That link you left is all 100% incorrect and any physicist would say so. Only non-physicists and non-chemists would make claims like that of “does not know.”
We learn in first year inroganic chemistry and general physics why these things cannot be so but I left references below ranging from basic/advanced undergraduate to graduate level textbooks (though it is all the same song really).
What this also shows is that anyone who openly agreed with you either has not background in physics and chemistry or a very limited amount in first year undergrduate and did not listen to the laws of thermodynamics explained.
Here is a slightly more complex explanation of entropy which stems from chapter 5 in Nonequlibrium thermodyamics by Yasar Demirel:
“Entropy is a thermodynamic potential and is not conserved; it gives a quantitaive measure of irreversibility” (Demirel, 2008, chp. 5, pr 1).He then goes on to explaining that dS is an exact differential of the state function entropy, and the final result of the integration… tell me what does that mean?
References
Chemical Thermodynamics Bevan Ott and Juliana Boerio-Goates.
Introduction to Modern thermodynamics Dilip Kondepudi Thurman D Kitchin
Professor of Chemistry. Wake Forest University.
Nonequilbrium theromdynamics (2008) Transport and Rate Processes in
Physical and Biological Systems.
Stastical thermodynamics proves why thermodynamics cannot be violated at the micro-level. The correspondence principle is what this is called. Thus global warming cannot be depicted by the hockey stick accurately or have a run away effect ever.
I wish I could shake this man’s hand. I wish others had his integrity.
The sad thing about this entire mess is you don’t need to be a professor emeritus to see that it was a fraud. Anyone with an undergraduate degree in any of the hard sciences could recognize that “This just isn’t how science is done!” and would therefore smell a rat.
Again I lack the words sufficient to express the respect I have for this man.
Hat tip to you Hal!
Mike V says:
October 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I think it’s probably missing the boat to ascribe the current state of affairs to an AGW conspiracy.
Is this not a conspiracy?: UN´s Agenda 21:
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
I am proud to count myself as a friend of Hal Lewis. We have worked together with a few other APS members for nearly two years to try to effect a moderation of position and the support of sober scientific debate.
I would first like to amplify somewhat on one of the events mentioned by Dr. Lewis. In the spring of this year, we petitioned the APS to “commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming.” This petition is referenced in Dr. Lewis’s letter and was largely a response to the ClimateGate revelations. It was signed by 267 members and former members, including nearly 100 Fellows of major scientific societies, 17 members of national academies, and two Nobel laureates. A number have published major research on the global warming issue, authored books on the issue, or worked in contiguous areas of meteorology and climate. Nearly all have backgrounds in key science areas that underlie the global warming issue. This Petition has not yet been granted a response by the APS.
The APS pattern of unwillingness to engage a significant group of members in a meaningful manner stands in contrast to the Royal Society, as indicated by the recently issued Royal Society Climate Change: Summary of the Science. It represents a meaningful step toward moderation and the encouragement of sober scientific debate. That is not to say that the new RS statement is perfect, but I would suggest that the prestige of the RS has been enhanced, rather than impaired, by working positively with a relatively small group of Fellows who disagreed with the previous position. It is a matter of good faith in the cause of science.
[More fun with Dave Springer, quotation follows]
Dave Springer says:
October 11, 2010 at 6:23 am
Daniel Kozub says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm
re; first rule of holes
Here is where you kept digging:
“Yes, in a closed system, with a black body, at thermal equillibrium.”
In the earth’s energy budget practically all incoming energy comes from the sun. Less than 1% from tidal friction, heat of formation, and radioactive decay. For the purpose of the energy budget the earth/sun system comprises a closed system.
“Your first error is inferring that all radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the earth.”
The commenter made no such inference that I could determine.
“Your second error is inferring that I was only including thermal radiation.”
I did not see that either. The commenter gave you a link to Kirchoff’s law which applies to all heated objects. The sun and earth are both heated objects with characteristic black body emission spectra of approximately 5000K and 300K respectively.
“Neither the sun nor the earth are black-bodies. But that isn’t an error in logic.”
Astronomy 101 – the sun and earth both approximate black bodies in their emission spectra.
“And the earth is far from being a closed system. Please research terrestrial energy sources, gravitation, gas laws, radioactive decay, relativity, and heat of formation.”
In the earth’s energy budget less than 1% of the energy comes from the sources you cite. In that context the sun/earth is a closed system.
“It’s sad that reading wikipedia can make you more ignorant.”
Not as sad as the same effect via a PhD program. At least in the case of wikipedia there are no tuition payments adding insult to injury.
[End Quotation]
Do you know the difference between an open and a closed system? Do you know what a practically closed system is? Seriously, you have a physics degree? This is high school level physics!
Thermodynamically, the earth and sun are an OPEN system. A flashlight is a closed system. A bomb calorimiter is another one.
Please tell me what color of visible light water emits at room temperature. What radio waves? What about a light bulb that isn’t on? The earth emits a smaller range of electromagnetic energy! I don’t think I’ll be able to teach you more than that about spectroscopy.
I think wikipedia and global warming discussion is tainting your definition of earth’s energy budget and specifically heat of formation. The earth has residual energy from its heat of formation. Every single chemical reaction has its own heat of formation. Every single one!
The heat of formation of one single kilogram of dried hardwood is about 15,000,000 Joules. Yes, 15 MJ for 1 kg. That energy is removed from the earth’s “energy budget”. It is not returned until it is completely combusted or decomposed (to O2, CO2, and N2).
This is a work-in-progress that I’ve spent a couple of weeks on: The estimation of total living biomass on the planet and it’s heat of formation seems like a daunting task to me. The best I can do is say it is probably on the order of 1 x 10^22 Joules. If that order of magnitude is correct, that would be approximately 1% of the yearly solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the earth. Adding bioavailable carbon and nitrogen into the ecosystem should increase the amount of living biomass (testable, falsifiable, and currently used in industrial greenhouses). Some of that biomass is essentially removed from the ecosystem every year. Some of that can eventually be turned into fossil fuels, which would retain a signicant amount of it’s heat of formation.
But that is variable and seems very difficult to measure. And it could be the location of Kevin Tennebreth’s “missing heat”. If it’s anywhere close to 1% of the sun’s yearly output, it would represent a significant portion the yearly change in the energy emitted from earth (temperature!). Well, significant if you consider tenths of degrees significant (hundreths and thousandths are in the scope of CCAGW).
Dave, slow your roll.
Sorta interesting that many, but not all, of the skeptics of AGW are the retired or near retirement scientists and those with the status of emeritus. On one hand, you could conclude retired scientists can say what they really think, now that they have little to no personal finances at risk. Unlike those scientists that still need to make a living, i.e., are employed by an organization that has publicly supported the hypothesis of catastrophic, human induced climate change.
On the other hand, you could conclude, as those who support the hypothesis of AGW, that guys like Harold Lewis, Fred Singer & Richard Lindzen are “old geezers” and they don’t understand the current climate models, or they once consulted with an evil energy company, and therefore can not be trusted.
Regardless of how one may interpret Lewis’ resignation letter, what I find most curious is the statement of “trillions of dollars” at stake. Lewis is not the first published scientist, nor likely the last, to make this claim. Ironically, it is the AGW alarmist crowd that has historically tried to paint energy corporations, certain politicians and skeptical scientists as having self interest, financial motivations for resisting legislation designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions, for example, or for being skeptical of the AGW hypothesis.
According to Wikipedia, USA’s GDP in 2009 was $14.3 trillion dollars and 100 quadrillon BTU’s were generated/consumed, with 8.4% due to renewable energy. According to American Petroleum Institute, the energy sector comprised 7.5% of our GDP.
Non-renewable Energy Industry $ in 2009 = $14.3 trillion x 0.075 x (1- 0.084) = $982.4 billion
Just for a very rough estimate, for example, a new 10% energy tax on non-renewable energy could raise $98.2 billion in new tax revenue a single year.
In 10 years, assuming 3%, annual growth, the new tax would generate a total sum of $1.1 trillion (assuming the new tax didn’t have the unintended consequence of retarding economic activity). This I believe is a very low estimate, as governments almost never tax a taxable activity only once!
As estimated in an Missoulian State Bureau article, the initial years of a national carbon trading system market in the U.S. is $150 billion/year (depends largely on the specifics of the legislation). I think I saw estimates of brokerage commissions ranging between 2.75% and 5.5%. So, another rough estimate, assuming a 3.7% brokerage commission and a 3% annual growth in the U.S. carbon trading market, the carbon traders could generate $63.6 billion over 10 years, just in commission fees alone. The New Energy Finance, a Britain-based research firm, said in a June 2009 report that the world’s carbon trading market could reach 3.5 trillion U.S. dollars by 2020 (assuming documented fraudulent trading practices are either shut-down or legitimized). This would equate to $130 billion in commissions per year worldwide.
So are “trillions” at stake if the AGW bubble bursts? Common sense and back-of-the-hand estimates says “yes”, certainly hundreds of billions and probably trillions are indeed at stake. Both the Washington and Wall Street stand to lose. According to Lewis, university careers are at stake as well.
Is the corrupting influence of money now more on the LEFT foot, perhaps?
Obama won’t tell. I don’t believe you will find the answer to these questions at websites like “Real Climate”, or in the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, CNN or PBS. Hell, I haven’t seen it on FOX either. Implementation of a cap and trade scheme will not “tell” either, simply because if the globe’s climate cools or stabilizes naturally, it will be claimed due to carbon emission reductions and if the climate warms, it will be claimed that it was worse than we thought, and we haven’t done enough!
Is AGW morphed into a greed driven scam? I don’t know for sure, but it sure is starting to smell like one.
The only chance for finding the truth is for complete, open and transparent public discussion of ALL the physical evidence for and against catastrophic, human-induced global warming. Until that is reasonably accomplished, the “science” of AGW is really not a science. It appears to me to have too much in common with a religious autocracy.
My congrats to Dr. Lewis for his efforts over his career.
I can only hope that more interested scientists and lay people consider looking at this link…
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/sustainable_oil_production.html
It seems that Mann, Jones, et al are pre-disposed to a theory WITHOUT considering all the facts.
I suppose any man who thinks he can control the climate is suffering from some sort of deeply disturbed complex.
I for one am interested in understanding exactly what is going on with the earth.
Until the science community decides to act on what Prof. Lewis has requested, we shall remain in the DARK Ages.
Ask questions, demand answers that consider all facts, don’t accept ‘D’ grade responses…ever.
Pshaw. The inclusion of this flat nonsense in the middle lets all the air out of Lewis’s “taking my ball and going home” rant.
Snort!
It is to guffaw, Anthony. Lewis’s letter will end up in the crackpot bin where it belongs.
JeffT, I read the report of the APS Kleppner committee. It was nothing more than a shallow recapitulation of the IPCC position, with no evident independent analysis of the science. I work with many physicists and have nothing but respect for their abilities and for the discipline. With that, I thought the Kleppner report was an insult to the profession.
It’s also ironic to note APS Councilor Dr. Brasseur’s self contradiction in the follow-on article, “Members Bombard Councilors with Messages on Climate Change.” In one part he,
“organized and categorized the first 180 messages he received to gauge the overall sentiments of the membership that responded. He found that 63 percent of respondents supported the existing statement with little or no change, while 37 percent said they opposed the current statement and wanted either no statement or the alternate statement adopted.”
Later, in the same article, ”
[Councilor Brasseur] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption
of scientifically unsound statements. Should [the process] be a democratic one or a science-based one?” Brasseur said, “I’m totally against the idea of a democratic poll of the membership.”
Councilor Brasseur, then, took comfort from a spontaneous email vote when it supported his view, but opposed a formal vote in apparent fear of contradiction.
Note also his patronizing attitude. Councilor Brasseur wants to exclude physicists from deciding a question of physics. Horrors! Physicists might engage in “scientifically unsound” physics. Councilor Brasseur thereby implicitly derogated trained physicists as a population of ignoramuses. Apparently he views a leadership that includes him as more competent to make physically sound judgments than mere hoi poloi physicists. His position exhibits the classical elitist disdain of popular intelligence.
The Kleppner report is behind a membership wall, by the way. The APS apparently decided to exclude the American public from the report that justifies the APS public policy on climate; a policy directed to influence the American government and to impact the American public. This exclusion, too, is an example of elitist disdain. The APS apparently has an anti-Hermetian view of ethical expectation. We have to exhibit it, but they don’t.
anna v
The things you mention are micro-climate not global climate. Urban heat islands – just a larger version of a campfire. We can’t even make it rain when there’s a drought or make it stop raining when there’s a flood and even if we could that’s still just changing the weather not the climate.
@Daniel Kozub
“Thermodynamically, the earth and sun are an OPEN system. A flashlight is a closed system. A bomb calorimiter is another one.”
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel…
Everyone with a passing knowledge of physics knows that closed systems are an ideal state that doesn’t exist in nature as it requires total isolation from the rest of the universe. Tell me how you’d isolate any point in our galaxy from the gravitational effects of the Andromeda galaxy. We don’t even know if the entire universe is a closed system because we don’t know what lies outside the observable portion of it.
I’m fixin’ to give up on you unless you start showing at least a high school level understanding of basic physics. No system in the real world is closed. Some are just closer approximations than others. Write that down.
The sun/earth system closely approximates a closed system for most practical purposes and certainly so for the earth’s energy budget.
@Daniel Kozub
“Please tell me what color of visible light water emits at room temperature.”
The electromagnetic frequency range that human eyeballs can discriminate is irrelevant – EMR is EMR. This may be the most asinine thing you’ve written so far but I could be wrong because there are so many asinine things you’ve written vying for the title.