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)
Why do we continue to give a hot d#$m what Revkin thinks/says? I thought it was beyond obvious during the climategate fallout he was not not really concerned about truth and certainly not a moderate on the subject. He was just being professionally cordial to us all along…
That post by “eadler” goes into my records as a perfect example of denial.
Chinese are leading the way in what now???
It’s all the Republicans? Really? Basically, all you’ve managed to say is that only Republicans are smart enough to see through a completely transparent scam… something I’m sure many Democrats here would disagree with.
Your outlook is so completely backward it reads like a parody of reality… Brilliant!
Re update #3, Revkin’s summation is to agree with Ropeik that “the way we perceive risk is affective” (sic), a combination both of the facts and how those facts emotionally feel, and that Dr. Lewis is “demonstrating the very phenomenon he laments, letting his affect and worldviews interfere with taking all the reliable evidence into account in order to make a truly informed and fair judgment”.
This is just a pompous, elaborate and ungrammatical way of suggesting that Dr Lewis should have known better than let his emotions get in the way of “a truly informed and fair judgment” – that the consensus APS view was of course absolutely correct, reliable, beyond criticism, etc. It is a simple ad hominem attack, made all the worse for the snide reference to emotionality. Why give it update status?
“scientists and researchers themselves regard peer review as providing ‘only a minimal assurance of quality'”
While that honest opinion from medical scientists and researchers is very refreshing compared to some scientists in other fields [climate science for instance], this “MedicalGate” is really disturbing news:
“Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269
MedicalGate: “From The Atlantic comes the story of John Ioannidis and his team of meta-researchers, who have studied the overall state of medical research and found it dangerously and widely lacking in trustworthiness. Even after filtering out the journalistic frippery and hyperbole, the story is pretty disturbing. Some points made in the article: even the most respected, widely accepted, peer-reviewed medical studies are all-too-often deeply flawed or outright wrong; when an error is brought to light and the conclusions publicly refuted, the erroneous conclusions often persist and are cited as valid for years, or even decades; scientists and researchers themselves regard peer review as providing ‘only a minimal assurance of quality’; and these shortcomings apply to medical research across the board, not just to blatantly self-serving pharmaceutical industry studies. The article concludes by saying, ‘Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor … I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life.’ I’ve always been somewhat suspicious of research findings, but before this article I had no idea just how prevalent untrustworthy results were.”
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/15/1934228/Meta-Research-Debunks-Medical-Study-Findings
I posted this as a comment on DotEarth. I don’t think it will make it through moderation there.
It’s funny. I read this and I don’t see it as a reasoned response. I see it as a knee jerk reaction.
As a supposed scientist, you must support your position, and you must supply the data used to obtain your conclusion, as well as the process you used to reach the conclusion.
If you don’t, how can any other scientist attempt to replicate what you have done, or determine if you have made any mistakes?
This is the best statement of Harold Lewis.
Anyone who claims to be able to predict the climate well enough to guide public policy is committing a fraud.
That’s exactly my point of view too. Climate simulation models have not been validated or calibrated to become reliable – perhaps they never will. Oh yes, in many cases simulations can give accurate predictions: http://www.simulia.com/products/abaqus_cfd.html after advanced fine-tuning of sensitive parameters.
Since the thermal transients in our climate have duration of decades and centuries, it may take a long time to tune a climate model. This means, of course, that Harold Lewis is perfectly right, and that it is impossible to tell whether climate models are right or wrong.
Then we are left with the null hypothesis. We cannot tell.
Steve Mennie says:
October 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“I’m kinda slow in most ways so I may have missed something..but how is referring to someone’s previous statements on the subject in question (Hall Lewis’ opinions on AGW) an example of ad hominem?”
Attacking the messenger and casting doubt on their veracity (by finding a previous contrary opinion) is the definition of ad hominem.
Digging around in someone’s published words to find a previous contrary statement does nothing to address the message and I thought Prof. Lewis rather nicely acknowledged that by not responding to Revkin’s questions on that point. In the face of increased knowledge and understanding, ‘facts’ change and it the real scientist who accepts that and changes their opinions.
Rob Potter says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
“I see Revkin went straight into ad hominem mode and dug up previous statements from Prof. Lewis followed by a an attack from a third party on the Professor’s credibility. Nice one Andy!”
The previous statements by Lewis affirmed the theory of AGW. Was Lewis committing fraud 20 years ago, influenced by big bucks that would flow from his position?
Lewis was attacking the integrity of the APS and the researchers who come to the conclusion that AGW is a real phenomenon and threatens human society with real harm. This is an ad hominem attack, accusing the people who run the APS of fraud. One ad hominem attack deserves another.
Lewis has some explaining to do, regarding why HE accuses people of dishonesty for taking a position that he previously held.
Professor Ropeik is an expert on what makes people mis-estimate risk, which is what appears to be happening in this case, based on Lewis dialog with Revkin. It is well understood that people are wired to discount the long term risk based on theory, and refuse to accept the costs of taking action that will mitigate risks that are long term.
It is pretty clear that your worldview is affecting your ability make a reasoned argument when it comes to AGW.
I have to take issue with those (e.g. Jack Greer) who sneer at contributors who may not have a string of publications in climate science. I respect the fact that the publication of peer reviewed papers is the currency of reputation in academia. It is by no means perfect, and there are thousands of emails that prove that, at least in the case of climate science, the process can be corrupt and some of the papers can be complete garbage.
Commercial or industrial scientists tend not to publish any papers, apart from patent specifications. They are judged more realistically on the real world success or failure of their claims. It is a pity that climate science frequently appears to show no connection with the real world at all and there seems to be little evidence of accountability; the reverse is true with clearly ridiculous, alarmist claims being published on a very frequent basis.
Most scientists with a general foundation in physics and chemistry are perfectly capable of reaching a valid judgement on many of the issues raised in the climate debate. Those skilled in mathematics and statistics are also well qualified to question climate science as the Hockey Stick Team knows to its cost.
If climate scientists are the only species on the planet that can have a valid view on this topic, then the human race might as well pack it in now.
@Larry Fields (and AGW Trolls)
Oil and Natural gas may in fact be UNLIMITED.
The USA (Dr. Gold) and the Russian’s have discovered ABIOTIC OIL – NOT derived from plant matter and the Russian’s especially have linked it to that great Nuclear Fission reactor running (4.5 BILLION years so far) at the earth’s core.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/sustainable_oil_production.html
Please do your research and try to understand what happens when you (all of you -AGW ) close your minds and buy the latest propaganda of the ruling class, brought to you via the whores of ‘science’, who have been bought and paid for.
I agree with Anthony as to the importance of Dr. Lewis actions… I would love to see more responsible Scientists act in a similar manner – unfortunately, the ruling class controls science.
I agree with Anthony as to the importance of Dr. Lewis actions… I would love to see more responsible Scientists act in a similar manner – unfortunately, the ruling class controls science.
A working Scientist is effectively nullified if he or she speaks against the ruling class, that is why they must wait till near the end of their career to speak up at all.
Dr. Lewis has chosen an exceptional method to make his points and Anthony has created a great forum to further the impact – Kudos to Anthony.
The piece by Andrew Revkin is a clasic propaganda piece, the style of which I recognize immediatly. It’s called “A, B, A, B, C C C”. Basically, you first present dueling arguments (it helps to make the argument you plan to show as wrong weak, by presenting one of the weaker or least credible proponants, or as here, simply editing out any of the strong arguments), by “showing both sides” (sort of), you establish your bona fides as a “balanced” reporter. By dancing around the subject, they leave the reader with the impression that the conclusion is not certain. Then, at the end, you present (TADA!) The Great Expert, who gives the opinion you want the people to believe. You present it last because, first, that increases the chance that they will actually remeber anything in this article, and second, you want to make it look like an actual conclusion, the “last word on the subject”.
When I see classic propaganda ploys being used by one side, I regard that side with EXTREME suspicion. You should to.
anna v says:
October 15, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“UPDATE3: Andrew Revkin, after a week (I sent him this story last Friday) of digging around to get just the right rebuttal, responds here at Dot Earth.
In the link there is this comment on the change of attitude of prof.
Lewis :
What a difference a couple of decades can make.
The answer is what I have discussed before: physicists are socially naive people. Having a strict training in the scientific method which is continually reinforced during the career years, ( each talk in a conference is like a thesis examination) they cannot easily imagine that in other so called “scientific” disciplines things are not just like in their own microcosm. He accepted on trust the peer reviewed results of the “climatologists” of that time, and included in good faith their conclusions in his risk assessments.
The difference the couple of decades have made are:
money, money, money.
Suddenly climate “science” was big business eating billions from the available funds for research ( money1), and suddenly politicians smelled money and put a large price tag and generated pyramid schemes (EU carbon exchange) that made politicians and others millionaires (money 2), and the specter of taxing the air one breathes came around the corner (money 3). The Ottoman called it head tax.
This onslaught on the pocketbook made even physicists look up and smell fish.
Asking the world to commit economic hara kiri is sure to get even a physicist’s attention.
Once one starts looking into the details of the (in) famous GCMs and their physics justification, which probably did not exist before the IPCC reports a decade or so ago, the precarious and arbitrary foundations become evident. One cannot justify such drastic measures on such flimsy “science”.
The change should be no surprise.”
I doubt that Lewis, who is a prominent man who worked in government could be described as “socially naive” 20 years ago when he wrote this book. He was an expert on Nuclear Winter, and said that the techniques used to evaluate this phenomenon appropriate to project the future of climate under the influence of CO2 emissions. His main accomplishments were service on government boards, according to his own biography. Characterizing him a socially naive is a non starter.
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Check out what he says:
http://books.google.com/books?id=noFcbT69gBEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=technological+risk+lewis+norton&source=bl&ots=uw2lmQyOc4&sig=lIa992e36pHkX35MqKjVk8knl2E&hl=en&ei=0Na3TOrcJsL48Aae-anrCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=greenhouse&f=false
In this book, he says that nuclear power is a cost effective low risk way to prevent global warming.
Your argument doesn’t make sense. It is a lame hypothesis for the purpose of rationalizing your position.
It is more likely that we are looking at some kind of age related dementia.
@ur momisugly Abiotic Oil says:
October 15, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I don’t think Thomas Gold in his book “Deep Hot Biosphere” made the argument for infinite oil, merely more than would be expected from the “fossil fuel” model. Also, I very few people have read or understood his book.
“”” eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:57 am
Chris Edwards says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:08 am
“For me the big clue to the lies is the cure the rich and powerful come up with, this does not help the situation one bit but bankrupts the west and gives our wealth to China who use it to produce more CO2. Kindly tell me how that is not enough proof of the scam?”
There are no facts or logic behind this statement, which is simply a statement of a conspiracy theory.
In fact the Chinese are leaders in alternative energy technology, despite the fact that they burn a lot of coal to power their industry.
The rich and powerful in the US are funding organizations like the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute, and are pouring tens of millions into the Republican campaign chest. They have been doing this for years. The Republicans have been the principle political opponents of the scientific theories behind global warming, and originated the propaganda campaign opposing the idea that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels.
The people driving opposition to AGW are taking advantage of human nature, which involves a reluctance to take action on problems that appear to be abstract and are theorized to occur in the future. Some misguided individuals in the scientific community who need to be mavericks, like Hal Lewis, are adding to this propaganda, playing the martyr to the cause of truth. In my opinion, the opposition to AGW is an army of cracked pots, led on by scoundrels shilling for the big energy and coal companies, for example, Tim Ball. “””
What a wonderfully unassailable position you speak from eadler. Your entire essay rests on these simple words :- “”In my opinion “”
Wow what genius; that the whole thing can be settled by YOUR opinion.
By the way; when we cite YOUR opinion, as our authority for our future utterances in suppost of AGW ; now that you have enlightened all of us ignoramuses; just who should we say our authoritative source is ?
Well like all important information traded in the cause of the “public’s right to know”; among that information the public has the right to know, is simply the source of that important information.
Anonymous or incognito information is of about the same amount of credibility as if it were written in some mystery and equally unknown language; namely about zero.
As for your conclusion; the Republicans aren’t anywhere near smart enough to be the driving opposition to the AGW scam; any more than the Democrats are smart enough to support it.
Rob Potter says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“Steve Mennie says:
October 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“I’m kinda slow in most ways so I may have missed something..but how is referring to someone’s previous statements on the subject in question (Hall Lewis’ opinions on AGW) an example of ad hominem?”
Attacking the messenger and casting doubt on their veracity (by finding a previous contrary opinion) is the definition of ad hominem.
Digging around in someone’s published words to find a previous contrary statement does nothing to address the message and I thought Prof. Lewis rather nicely acknowledged that by not responding to Revkin’s questions on that point. In the face of increased knowledge and understanding, ‘facts’ change and it the real scientist who accepts that and changes their opinions.”
Sorry but your post is nonsense. Showing that a person’s position is inconsistent is not an ad hominem argument at all. Professor Lewis is calling the APS leadership dishonest, for adopting a position he himself held and promoted as correct 20 years ago in a book that he wrote. To Lewis, 20 years ago, the models were a convincing projection of damaging global warming and he endorsed them and suggested that nuclear power was an emissions free source of energy that could be used in place of the fossil fuels which were harming the climate of earth. Pointing this out is hardly making an ad hominem argument at all. Why doesn’t he accuse himself of dishonesty for his opinion on this 20 years ago?
Lewis is not a climate scientist, and wasn’t really much of a scientist in the first place.
I haven’t been able to find a paper with his name on it.
His claim to fame is service on government boards.
In dodging the question posed by Revkin, Lewis didn’t specify what the increased knowledge was that made him change his views. There is a higher burden on him to do so, since he has not published much science at all, and is not a climate scientist. It is not a praiseworthy stance at all.
He was never a leader in the field of physics, and maybe at age 87, he is trying to get himself a little bit of notoriety after being a non entity in the field of physics for 60+ years.
George E. Smith says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:41 pm
““”” eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:57 am
Chris Edwards says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:08 am
“For me the big clue to the lies is the cure the rich and powerful come up with, this does not help the situation one bit but bankrupts the west and gives our wealth to China who use it to produce more CO2. Kindly tell me how that is not enough proof of the scam?”
There are no facts or logic behind this statement, which is simply a statement of a conspiracy theory.
In fact the Chinese are leaders in alternative energy technology, despite the fact that they burn a lot of coal to power their industry.
The rich and powerful in the US are funding organizations like the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute, and are pouring tens of millions into the Republican campaign chest. They have been doing this for years. The Republicans have been the principle political opponents of the scientific theories behind global warming, and originated the propaganda campaign opposing the idea that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels.
The people driving opposition to AGW are taking advantage of human nature, which involves a reluctance to take action on problems that appear to be abstract and are theorized to occur in the future. Some misguided individuals in the scientific community who need to be mavericks, like Hal Lewis, are adding to this propaganda, playing the martyr to the cause of truth. In my opinion, the opposition to AGW is an army of cracked pots, led on by scoundrels shilling for the big energy and coal companies, for example, Tim Ball. “””
What a wonderfully unassailable position you speak from eadler. Your entire essay rests on these simple words :- “”In my opinion “”
Wow what genius; that the whole thing can be settled by YOUR opinion.
By the way; when we cite YOUR opinion, as our authority for our future utterances in suppost of AGW ; now that you have enlightened all of us ignoramuses; just who should we say our authoritative source is ?
Well like all important information traded in the cause of the “public’s right to know”; among that information the public has the right to know, is simply the source of that important information.
Anonymous or incognito information is of about the same amount of credibility as if it were written in some mystery and equally unknown language; namely about zero.
As for your conclusion; the Republicans aren’t anywhere near smart enough to be the driving opposition to the AGW scam; any more than the Democrats are smart enough to support it.”
The facts are that opposition to global warming in the 80’s, in the wake of the government commissions which projected that global warming due to CO2 would be a problem, did not originate in the scientific literature, but rather in publications by right wing think tanks. The right wing has funded and pushed the idea that global warming is a scam for over 25 years. Heartland Institute is only one example.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
This is not merely an opinion, which is what you appear to claim.
Republicans as you say are not smart about science, but they are good at propaganda and have a lot of money, and can afford to pay useful idiots. The public cannot tell the difference between sound science and crack pot theories. About 1/2 of the public does not accept the foundation of modern biology, the theory of evolution.
There are many crack pot theories associated with the so called skeptics that I have read over the past few years. Among them are that the claims that absorption by CO2 is already saturated, that clouds can be a climate forcing factor, that undersea volcanoes are responsible for the warming of the Arctic, it is all due to cosmic rays, and that there has been no warming trend. The arguments against AGW are just full of such pseudo science, and there is no shortage of uneducated fools who make them, and mislead the population that doesn’t know any better.
There are some aspects of global warming that are uncertain, especially the actions of clouds, but the data seems to show that the uncertainty is in how big the future temperature increases are going to be.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Lewis is not a climate scientist….
Are you? If not, then perhaps you should follow your own rule and not comment upon the merits of Climate Science’s CO2AGW “science”.
Nor do you seem to know any of the major critcisms of Climate Science advanced by the “sceptics”.
So just where does that leave you?
eadler, I suggest you take a look at the carbon credits and who has to buy them (in the UK hospitals???) and who gets given them, check out EUreferendum they carried a story (as did some daily national newspapers and a google search confirmed it) about a steel company in Wales who gave up pthe whole plant and closed down as they were just scrapimg by and the next financial year they were liable for millions of pounds worth of carbon credits, at the same time the famous train engineer from India opened basicly the same plant but recieved that many credits, get it yet, dont look at the huge scam, organised by the UN and yes Pachuri has his snout in this trough too, about the R12/R13 scam. Get your facts straight and see what is in front of your eyes, even if it offends you!
eadler; John Maynard Keynes once said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Many, many folks who are now climate skeptic/realists used to believe the Warmist nonsense. Another famous person said “The people will believe a big lie, but not a small lie.” The Warmist propaganda machine certainly did its job well, with the MSM all on board, and politicians, various and sundry rent-seeking NGO’s, politicians, and sadly, once-revered scientific organizations also falling in line. It is no surprise then, to anyone with half a brain anyway, that Mr. Lewis once believed it.
As for your pathetic statement Lewis is not a climate scientist, and wasn’t really much of a scientist in the first place you are simply using the logical fallacies of Appeal to Authority, as well as the ad Hominem form of argument you obviously so adore. Keep up the good work. Would you care for another shovel? That one looks worn.
Since we are now rehashing things Lewis once stated, here’s one from David Ropeik,
“Cultural Cognition — We choose positions that confirm the general view of the tribes with which we most strongly associate, to strengthen that tribe’s prominence, because as our tribe’s chances go, so go ours.”, from Solving Climae Change Is a Psychological Challenge–Some Solutions” article.
I wonder if Ropeik’s dynamic is also at work within the AGW crowd? Makes you say hmmmm.
Steve Mennie says:
“If referring to a person’s previous statements about a subject is equivalent to an ad hominem attack, how would you defend Attorney General Cuccinelli’s desire to refer to ten years of M. Mann’s emails?”
You need to get up to speed on the difference between a baseless ad-hom attack on a respected senior physicist for the purpose of deflecting this discussion away from what Dr Lewis was pointing out, and evidence being gathered in the investigation of possible crimes. Emails are evidence, therefore they are not ad hominem attacks. See the difference?
There is one common thread that runs through every alarmists ‘s ad hominem attack on every individual who points out wrongdoing, like Dr Lewis did, or who points out falsified CAGW hypotheses, like Lord Monckton does repeatedly, or Dr Curry, who is viewed as escaping from the CAGW reservation.
That increasingly common ad-hom attack is the Saul Alinsky tactic of singling out and demonizing the scientist du jour who dares to stand up and speak out. I note that the substantive issues are never discussed by the alarmist crowd — only the smear tactics are discussed.
I don’t understand how the resignation of an 87-year-old physicist proves that climate change is not happening? Could somebody explain this to me?
Matt says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I don’t understand how the resignation of an 87-year-old physicist proves that climate change is not happening? Could somebody explain this to me?
Climate change is always happening. But it’s Climate Science’s own “tenet” which claims it can’t be happening now unless fossil fuel CO2 is causing it. Pretty strange, eh?
So, there I am wondering why this is such a momentus, nee monumental, nee monsterous event?
One 87 year old person resigns from an organization.
Said individual did not even have their own wikipedia page prior to 10/12/2010.
I mean his whole life’s work boils down to a single resignation?
That’s the most important thing this individual has done in 87 years of living, a single resignation letter?
Meh.