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)
I am disappointed that this story is not getting the publicity that it deserves.
WUWT readers can help here.
Go to Google and copy this into the search box:
“American Physical Society”
including the double quotes, and press Enter.
Click on any results about Hal Lewis’s resignation and have a look at them.
Do not click on any other search results.
Do not click on beforeitsnews.com
There are plenty of stories in the first 20 or so pages of results.
Do it now! I shall be able to tell if you have done this!
jaymann;
Like giving orders, do we? My misspelled response: “Git stoffed!”
Glad you liked this tip, Anthony.
I was surprised how few UK media outlets took up this story. I read The Times and Daily Mail, and not a whisper of it. I only found out because I read the Daily Express for some reason !!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204880/Global-warming-is-the-greatest-fraud-in-60-years-
For non UK readers, the Daily Express is not a highly regarded newspaper, it being owned by a pawn baron. However, it has never liked the AGW bandwagon/fraud.
.
Speaking of Wiki, the character assassination of Prof. Lewis has already begun, courtesy of a certain Mr. William Connolley. Since Wiki appear to be or are unable to restrain his activities, perhaps the good Professor’s lawyers should …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harold_Lewis
A snapshot of Mr. Connolley’s past exploits
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
Pointman
It warms my heart that such a notable and respected personality is willing to stand up and point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
I hope that more and more will follow his lead and that the trickle becomes a torrent and then a flood.
Its damaging to Science in general and Climate Science in particular.
My worry is that, somewhere behind the fabrications, obfuscurations and religous zeal there exists real climate issues that we can do something about, real science that has been interdicted and real talents that have been blighted.
Here is the official response to Hal Lewis’ resignation letter, from the APS itself:
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
.
It says:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.
.
Look like William Connolley is back at work… (founding contributor to RealClimate)
Let the character assasination of any scientist that speaks out, begin…
See the discussion at wikipedia, around HAL LEWIS….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harold_Lewis
Either the stories about Connolley being banned from Wiki were a pure disinformation tactic, or Wikipedia allows its oversight committees absolutely no real authority.
I suspect the former.
Jacob Mack says:
October 13, 2010 at 1:19 am
Wikipedia can be downright awful where there is any opportunity to slant it to suit liberal agenda items. In anything relatively apolitical it’s a wonderful resource but like any encyclopedia it isn’t considered authoritative. Links to citations, references, and external reading are usually provided but unfortunately many of those links are behind paywalls or refer to texts which otherwise aren’t readily available. Google books often has authoritative references for free. Science can be a difficult business for those of us who don’t have university access to the literature but it’s sure become a lot less difficult in the past 10 years.
re; Hawkings
Black holes themselves are theoretical constructs where their actual existence borders on dogmatic belief and where arguing otherwise can be damaging to reputations and careers. Arxiv.org is usually where you find the more heretical views w/regard to theoretical physics.
Hawkings didn’t argue that matter or energy was lost. Theoretically everthing that enters a black hole eventually emerges through Hawking radiation which is basically (in my way of understanding) quantum tunneling through the event horizon. He argued that the radiation from the evaporting black hole carried no information with it not even in principle. On the face of it that violates time symmetry – if you have complete information about the state of any isolated system you can (again only in principle) calculate all past and future states. Time itself then appears to be a mere accounting artifact rather than some fundmental aspect of the universe and where the so-called arrow of time is a byproduct of the thermodynamic law of entropy.
This of course has deep philosophical and religious implications and boils down to the question of whether the universe is deterministic or not. The usual argument against determinism is quantum uncertainty but personally I’m a fan of hidden variables in that matter and pretty much follow along with Einstein’s famous statement “God doesn’t play at dice with the universe”. That view was decidedly biased when the non-zero cosmological constant was recently given a new lease on life with the discovery that the exapansion of the universe is accelerating in defiance of gravity and the concept of dark energy was born. While it is thought that so-called dark energy, which is calculated to account for some 70% of the “stuff” that makes up the universe, is homogenous and vanishingly dilute in any smaller volumes, what if it isn’t perfectly homogenous? How much dark energy would it take to influence the outcome of a wave function collapse? We don’t have a theory of quantum gravity to say nothing of a quantum theory of dark energy. I take it all with a grain of salt given the incomplete state of physics and I usually object anytime quantum mechanics enters a discussion of atmospheric physics as it all happens on scales well beyond the quantum domain and rather in the domain of classical mechanics which is tried, true, and more intuitively understood by the lay person.
re; APS statement
“Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming;”
My emphasis. This where they go wrong. The earth is currently in an ice age and we are presently in a brief respite called an interglacial period. In their own words no “reputable scientist” disputes the ice age. Therefore it is more accurate and far less misleading to say that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere works against the global cooling we should expect as the interglacial period (which is already long in tooth) wraps up and ice age conditions return.
Why should this none story be pushed so hard. As I see it, an old man resigns in a huff. This happens every day. I’m an old man and I’ve done it a couple of times. What does this have to do with anything about AGW?
Nice!
One stone in the pond of truth as many more should follow. Hang on Alarmist the water is about to get choppy. >:)
When asked in 1968 about his papers, Halsaid the were ” lost in moving or discarded”.
Read all about it at aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html.
Dr. Phil is now out shopping to replace an exploded irony meter.
REPLY: Well in fairness, lugging around tons of dead tree format is a lot easier to justify deletion or recycling of than deleting emails and data off a server, which requires no heavy lifting when moving. It goes to motive.
BTW an internet search reveals that you have been active in supporting a wind farm in Nova Scotia. Is that what you do, or are you employed as a professional complainer by some NGO? – Anthony
Seriously, what an incredible non-story of propaganda hype tacked to the top by Mr. Watts.
Does anyone here have a link to thoughtful, detailed dissenting argument published by Hal Lewis regarding of the actual science outlined in the IPPC WG1 report?
As best I can tell, Mr. Lewis has never bothered to gain a understanding of even the most fundamental understanding of climate science. For example, Mr. lewis has stated his belief that warming is the predominant driver for increased atmospheric CO2 levels, this when CO2 isotope and carbon sink analysis completely destroy the validity of that opinion. He doesn’t appear to understand the basics of climate forcings and feedbacks. Do you think that might be one reason his “Topical Group on Climate Science” was rebuffed?
Again, I’d appreciate link to thoughtful, detailed climate science-based arguments published by Hal Lewis … I haven’t found any.
I do not ascribe to GW, if indeed real, being caused by human activity. As an engineer-scientist, I don’t believe the so-called data either. Nevertheless, I like to ask the question, “So what should the real temperature of the earth be?” That really should end the debate.
Correction to previous post: should be “subscribe to” not “ascribe to”.
——————
Jack Greer,
Good comment. I think you will very soon see some joint statements by Lewis, Lindzen, Dyson and others regarding the substantive issues they have with consensus/accepted climate science. Try these links to contact them:
I certainly look forward to substance, finally from a more open forum than the APS.
Certainly, Lewis has improved his situation.
John
“”” Daniel Denham says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:05 am
I do not ascribe to GW, if indeed real, being caused by human activity. As an engineer-scientist, I don’t believe the so-called data either. Nevertheless, I like to ask the question, “So what should the real temperature of the earth be?” That really should end the debate.
Daniel Denham says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:18 am
Correction to previous post: should be “subscribe to” not “ascribe to”. “””
Time to hit the Dictionary Daniel. Your second attempt was a big improvement over the first; but if you read your statement carefully in the second version, I think you will still find it is still an awkward wording that you could say some other way.
But hey; I’m not being critical. We don’t do untypos and the like here; too many important things to talk about to be pit nicky about “Anguished English. ”
And for the legal disclaimer; that is actually the exact title of one of the 768 books on the English language authored by Dr Richard Lederer; the world’s foremost authority on the English Language. And for the Trivial pursuits enthusiasts; he is also the father of both Howard Lederer, and Annie Duke, who are two of the most successful professional Poker players on the circuit. Anie Duke of course was the lady who simply kicked Joan Rivers arse on that rigged Donald Trump sorcerer’s apprentice T&V show.
To Richard M
I’m not going to get into an off topic discussion of Miskolczi. I will just note that if you read around (start with Dr Roy Spencer) you may come to the opinion that M is not the devastating critique you think it is.
To George E Smith
Again I’m not straying into the off topic foul zone. I will just note your opening comments;
And then there is the real problem of what does a warmer atmosphere have to do with climate and in particular catastrophic climate change.
Quite alot actually.
A warmer atmosphere means that there is more energy in the system, this will force a change in climate. Whether that will be catastrophic will depend on climate sensitivity.
I note that neither of you have anything to say regarding my ‘on topic’ comments but don’t worry I won’t interpret your silence as consent 🙂
John Whitman says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
Jack Greer,
Good comment. I think you will very soon see some joint statements by Lewis, Lindzen, Dyson and others regarding the substantive issues they have with consensus/accepted climate science. Try these links to contact them:
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1687-professor-hal-lewis-joins-the-gwpf.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html
I certainly look forward to substance, finally from a more open forum than the APS.
Certainly, Lewis has improved his situation.
John
—————–
Yes, John, the focus s/b on honest discussion of the science, the data, the probability of determinations, the likely impacts over time, etc.
What I asked for was links that would give any indication that Hal Lewis has any depth of understanding climate science work to-date, and the specific related physics thereof …
What you provided are links to the exercise of political/propaganda opportunism – an effort to seize upon political energy that can be distorted to purpose. Any old neural surgeon could shake his fist at the sky damning “the sham that is global warming” … that w/b surgeon might have the same level of understanding of the actual science to-date as Lewis, as best I can tell – he’d just be more difficult to propagandize.
Do you have any links to thoughtful, detailed climate science-based arguments published by Hal Lewis? … I haven’t found any.
—————-
marco,
So, based on your above comment, I did go back to see your comments on this thread. What exactly were the ‘on topic’ comments that you imply are worthy our attention and that we are running from in our most cowardly fashion? Us lowly commenter types may have missed your self-important missives.
Restate please, if you condescend to do so.
NOTE: Lewis and some current APS members have responded to the APS press release (that responded to the Lewis resignation letter). It may help you a little.
This time I think the revolution will be televised. : )
John
Doing a google I see that now that Hal Lewis Resignation has reached 902,000
Reading with interest @danielkozub I decided to see what google had to say about him, Daniel Kozub has just finished 22 years as a NAFTA bus driver, well, intelligent critics, in this modern world have to hide somewhere.
Dr. Lewis, all the very best.
“”” Ralph says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:58 am
Here is the official response to Hal Lewis’ resignation letter, from the APS itself:
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
.
………………………………
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. “””””
Well Ralph, I am not personally a member of the APS; I do belong to the Optical Society of America; which I believe is a part of another Physics Organisation , The American Institute of Physics, in fact OSA was one of the founding groups of AIP.
But I am quite sure that I am a reputable scientist; and I go to great lengths to see that I maintain the utmost in scientific integrity in everything I do; either on or off the job. So I think I fall within the category that the APS leadership is referring to; they did not limit their class to only APS members.
So to their declaration of what “”” virtually all reputable scientists agree “”” to should apply to me too. So as to:-
“Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity ” Yes we exhale it; in my case about 56 times every minute. Also irrelevent since it is the extent to which humans contribute CO2 that ismaybe (or maybe not) important. Hey we also lower the albedo of the planet, thereby contributing to global warming, each time we pick a white cauiliflower from the field too.
“Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming ” Well the use of the word “excellent” is quite unscientific; and factually incorrect. CO2 is actually a very selective infra-red absorber; and specifically it is a quite poor absorber at a wavelength of 10.1 microns; which should be the spectral peak of the emission from the earth at its global mean Temperature of 288 K or +15 deg C. But yes I agree that CO2 does absorb some infrared radiation. I also agree that to that extent it does contribute to warming of the atmosphere; and to the extent that the atmosphere IS a part of the globe; then ergo it contributes to warming of a thermal capacity minor part of the globe. Again literally true but is it significant when other GHGs such as H2O do the same thing; and (are) much more prevalent that CO2 (in the case of H2O).
Anyone looking at the total absorption spectrum of H2O and CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE who judged that it was the CO2 that was “an excellent infrared absorber”, would hardly be making an unbiassed judgement; even ignoring the relative abundance of those two permanent components of the atmosphere.
Then we have :-
” The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years. ”
Utter nonsense; CO2 is a permanent part of the atmosphere and has been for at least 600 million years; and it comes and goes on a regular basis; in fact every single year in the arctic around the north pole the atmospheric CO2 drops by 18 ppm in just 5 months; and at that rate of removal, the present 110 ppm excess over the supposedly stable background level of 280 ppm would be removed in about 2 1/2 years, or 99% removal in 12 1/2 years if it followed a normal single time constant exponential decay. And also irrelevent since the warming effect of CO2 (if any) depends on the amount of CO2 not on how long a particular serial numbered molecule has been in the atmosphere; their absorption properties do not degrade ( or enhance) over time.
So the position statement of the APS is both quite unscientific and factually debatable; and moreover does not even address the extent to which CO2 might affect climate or GW or whatever they call it now.
So the APS should not be issuing such trash in the guise of science in the name of their membership; at least not without a secret ballot poll of their entire mebership; and they should certainly not expand their assertians to reputable scientists like me; who are not among their membership; and in my case would never be; given their churlish behavior.
And they should stop with this trash talk; that somebody who is studying the genetic makeup of some pre-cambrian trilobite or what have you, qualifies as an authentic “Climate Scientist”; but someone who is simply a Physicist or a Physical Chemist; but has not authored a paper on the effects of “Oxygen isotope variations in the Anthropogenic Climate Change Contribution of Carbon Dioxide.” is an ignoramus duffer who should not comment on matters he has not presented a PhD thesis on.
Hey climate is about physics and physical chemistry, primarily (probably biology as well) but it is NOT about how many different species of Trilobites flourished in what geological era.
And for the legal disclaimer; I’m NOT bashing trilobite hunters; and they ARE authentic scientists (wish I could go hunt trilobites); but whether the earth is racing to climatic disaster or not (it isn’t) will not depend on trilobites or any other ancient critters however cute they might have been.
By the way; as an aside to the above rant. Does anybody ever bother to look up the word “virtual” in a dictionary to see what it REALLY means.
I believe it is more likely to mean UNREAL, than MOST.
So “virtually all” is a damn silly way to say “nearly all”; and it even takes up more space and letters. So if you mean most or nearly all, say so, and cut with the virtually BS.
In Optics “virtual” means in fact quite unreal !
“”” Brian H says:
October 12, 2010 at 4:26 pm
G.E. Smith;
The warmists and lukewarmists have never taken on and answered this seminal cite:
Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a science:
“Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture [= preliminary guess without evidence, which may lead to a hypothesis with pass-fail proposals, which may eventually qualify as a theory], which may be proved or disproved already [= previously] in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical text-book on this subject [95]. [In] 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth’s climates is definitively unmeasurable [98].”
—
“Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.
My bolding.
So it cedes far too much to acknowledge that CO2 participates in any postulated or speculated GH mechanism. Lukewarmists’ tepid thinking notwithstanding. “””
Brian; I am not sure exactly what of the above is your words and what is something of someone else’s that you are citing.
I am quite familiar with the “free downloadable” paper that you mentioned. I’m less than certain that the paper makes the case that its argumentative title proclaims.
As for me; I’m quite certain (to my own satisfaction) that CO2 is at best playing only a minor role in earth climate. I could go on and conjecture that if there was NO CO2 in the earth atmosphere; or shall we say no more than 389.62 parts per Billion (0.15 or today’s level), that earth’s temperature would not be 30 deg C cooler than it is now; as one would compute from the IPCC asserted value of 3.0 +/-50% value for the “Climate Sensitivity” as defined (apparently) by the late Dr Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. I’d even venture a wild guess that it would be barely distinguishable from what the temperatures are today. It would be somewhat more arid and less cloudiness; but quite comfortable and liveable.
IT’S THE WATER !!
But to deny that CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation around 15 microns wavelength, and in the lower atmosphere thermalizes that energy in molecular collisions; is not something I could; or would defend.