[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles

Title: Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam
Source: Red, White and Blue News
URL Source: http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670
Published: Oct 11, 2010
Author: RWBN
Post Date: 2010-10-11 14:56:03 by Badeye
Keywords: None
Views: 51344
Comments: 69

Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam Share

As reported by the Gateway Pundit: Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don’t like this stuff getting out).

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

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…

Popularity: 100% [?]

Short URL: redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Badeye (#0)

A good illustration of the dangers of allowing the government to co-opt the sciences and dominate the dissemination research money. I believe it's called "regulatory capture".

I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson  posted on  2010-10-11   15:44:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Andrew Jackson (#1)

Agree.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-11   15:46:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Badeye (#0)

It's not that unusual to see someone who is very bright and talented wander off into "crankhood" (especially in their twilight years). That happened to Linus Pauling and Kerry Mullis (Nobel laureates in chemistry).

More cranks with PhD's can be found here: http://www.catholicintl.com/galileowaswrong/index.html

Now, how do you distinguish cranks from non-cranks? The best way is to see what they've published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You will want to look at what they've actually published, what journals they've published in (are the journals leading journals, or low-impact "fringe" journals?), and perhaps most importantly, *how many times their work has been cited by other researchers*. That last item is known as the "impact factor".

Scientists like James Hansen, who have published large numbers of articles in leading scientific journals (like Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc), and whose research has been cited many times by other researchers, are the real deal.

Scientists like Harold Lewis who have published little or no climate research, who haven't been cited by other climate researchers, and yet make loud public pronouncements about the field in which they've performed no research, can safely be labeled as cranks.

And yes, I read his Lewis' letter -- it contained zero evidence in support of his claim that climate-science is fraudulent. It is nothing more than the ravings of a former scientist now in his declining years. Also note that Lewis' area of specialty is far outside of climate-science. Asking Lewis about climate science would be like consulting your Dentist about open-heart surgery.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   15:49:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Andrew Jackson (#1)

A good illustration of the dangers of allowing the government to co-opt the sciences and dominate the dissemination research money. I believe it's called "regulatory capture".

Good point - we should only allow private corporations to fund research, who better to fund research of food safety than monsanto, or who better to fund global warming research than carbon producers, right?


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   15:50:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: go65 (#3)

Somehow this doesn't seem to carry as much weight...lol

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-11   15:52:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Badeye (#5)

Somehow this doesn't seem to carry as much weight...lol

Agreed, given this guy has no standing among global warming science, there's as much weight attached to his statement as there is to your own statements on global warming.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   15:56:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: go65 (#4)

Good point - we should only allow private corporations to fund research

I don't believe "we" have any business deciding or influencing who does or does not engage in research.

I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson  posted on  2010-10-11   15:56:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: go65 (#3)

And yes, I read his Lewis' letter -- it contained zero evidence in support of his claim that climate-science is fraudulent. It is nothing more than the ravings of a former scientist now in his declining years. Also note that Lewis' area of specialty is far outside of climate-science. Asking Lewis about climate science would be like consulting your Dentist about open-heart surgery

His point wasn't that climate science is fraudulent, it was that the scientific process based upon open inquiry has been abandoned. Something that Lewis is quite familiar with.

I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson  posted on  2010-10-11   16:01:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Andrew Jackson (#8)

His point wasn't that climate science is fraudulent, it was that the scientific process based upon open inquiry has been abandoned. Something that Lewis is quite familiar with.

again, given his lack of involvement in climate science, it's hard to take his claims seriously.

I keep pointing out that refuting global warming is simple: 1. simply demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising 2. demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising a consequence of human activity 3. demonstrate that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

So far, nobody has been able to refute any of those three.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   16:12:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: go65 (#6)

Agreed, given this guy has no standing among global warming science, there's as much weight attached to his statement as there is to your own statements on global warming.

(laughing)

Suit yourself.

22 days...

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-11   16:13:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: go65 (#9)

I keep pointing out that refuting global warming is simple: 1. simply demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising 2. demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising a consequence of human activity 3. demonstrate that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

So far, nobody has been able to refute any of those three.

Even Bob Scheifer isn't buying this pretzel logic, as he displayed with Axelrod over the weekend, GO65.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-11   16:15:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: go65 (#9)

again, given his lack of involvement in climate science, it's hard to take his claims seriously.

I understood it the first time. That's why my post addressed the fallacy of the argument.

I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson  posted on  2010-10-11   16:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: go65 (#9)

I keep pointing out that refuting global warming is simple: 1. simply demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising 2. demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising a consequence of human activity 3. demonstrate that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

So far, nobody has been able to refute any of those three.

That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. I'll give you a dollar if you can prove you didn't pick your nose last night

I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson  posted on  2010-10-11   16:18:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Badeye (#0)

When I was in school this was the tac the libs used for control:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.

WhiteSands  posted on  2010-10-11   16:21:32 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Andrew Jackson (#13)

That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. I'll give you a dollar if you can prove you didn't pick your nose last night

It's not impossible prove any of those aren't true. Take air samples around the globe and demonstrate CO2 isn't rising.

The science is pretty clear and compelling.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   16:48:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: WhiteSands (#14)

Same here. Another DISCREDITED JUNK SCIENCE BOOK was 'Silent Spring' which is directly responsible for millions of dead children since it was published, via malaria.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-11   16:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: WhiteSands (#14)

Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone? Of course not, you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the Great Pumpkin.

buckeroo  posted on  2010-10-11   17:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: buckeroo, WhiteSands (#17)

Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone?

Was the quality of life better in China and India 100 years ago? How about in the US?

Ibluafartsky  posted on  2010-10-11   18:24:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: buckeroo (#17)

Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone?

No.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.

WhiteSands  posted on  2010-10-11   18:42:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: buckeroo (#17)

Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone?

I am saying: one of the eco tactics you liberals tried to use to empower yourselves was the Population Bombs theories.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.

WhiteSands  posted on  2010-10-11   18:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: WhiteSands, Ibluafartsky, buckeroo (#20) (Edited)

Congrats!

You two morons just let someone with the IQ of buckeroo hijack you, away from a scientist's claim global warming is a hoax, into a debate about population control.

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   19:04:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: go65 (#3)

And yes, I read his Lewis' letter -- it contained zero evidence in support of his claim that climate-science is fraudulent.

I guess you skipped over this part when you read the letter:

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.

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   19:14:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Badeye (#0)

Of course it's a scam and Al Gore should be arrested and prosecuted for fraud.

While we're at it, whoever in the Obama administration was responsible for steeling GM from the bond holders should be prosecuted for grand larceny.


“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-11   19:15:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: buckeroo (#17)

Population, World

6,697,254,041 - 2008

268,601 square miles for Texas

That would be 24933.8388204 people per square mile if everyone on earth lived in Texas.

27878400 square feet in a square mile.

That would be 1148 sq ft per person.

Which would be a plot of land 57'X20' if every person on earth lived in Texas.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-10-11   19:19:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Wood_Chopper (#22)

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'll go to a physicist for answers about climate as soon as I go to a plumber to have my heart checked.

Again, the point here is that Lewis has zero record of accomplishment in the field of climate science.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   19:40:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Badeye (#16)

Same here. Another DISCREDITED JUNK SCIENCE BOOK was 'Silent Spring' which is directly responsible for millions of dead children since it was published, via malaria.

And of course there's the discredited science that smoking isn't harmful.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   19:41:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: go65 (#25) (Edited)

I'll go to a physicist for answers about climate as soon as I go to a plumber to have my heart checked.

The physicist was not commenting on climate, but rather on the methods used by the "climate scientists" and you know it.

Have you read the ClimateGate documents/Montford's book? I'll bet not.

So sad for you that "global warming" is now KNOWN to be the fraud it is, and all your whining and tantrum foot-stomping won't revive it. The "facts" you attempt to argue have been shown to be bullshit.

That's why no one takes the time to debate your discredited "facts". No need to.

"Global warming" as an issue, is dead.

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   20:13:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: go65 (#25) (Edited)

Again, the point here is that Lewis has zero record of accomplishment in the field of climate science.

The point here is that Lewis has an OUTSTANDING record of accomplishment in the field of SCIENCE, and knows bullshit science research from sound science research.

He knows far more about it than you do, I'll wager.

On this subject, he's the expert, you're the plumber. I'll go with him.

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   20:19:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Wood_Chopper (#28)

The point here is that Lewis has an OUTSTANDING record of accomplishment in the field of SCIENCE, and knows bullshit science research from sound science research.

As do thousands of other scientists who disagree with him, why should his opinions trump those of others, especially the ones with a deep background in climate science who've actually made the effort to submit their work for peer review?


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   20:37:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: go65 (#25) (Edited)

I'll go to a physicist for answers about climate as soon as I go to a plumber to have my heart checked.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life.

Seriously, if this is what you honestly believe then are you sadly one of the illiterate boneheads that have have made this country 25 out of 30 in terms of science education in the developed world.

The entire universe, planet, atmosphere, etc. is ALL physics.

Climatologist = the weatherman who almost gets nothing right.

You have demonstrated one important reason why America is on the rocks.


“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-11   20:37:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Wood_Chopper (#27)

So sad for you that "global warming" is now KNOWN to be the fraud it is, and all your whining and tantrum foot-stomping won't revive it. The "facts" you attempt to argue have been shown to be bullshit.

It's only KNOWN to be a fraud if you dismiss the temperature record and the record of rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

The problem with the "global warming is a fraud" crowd is that they offer nothing to back up their claims, instead they simply wave their arms and dismiss what they don't like, sort of like the 9/11 truthers.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   20:38:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: jwpegler (#30)

The entire universe, planet, atmosphere, etc. is ALL physics.

Who do you go to when you feel ill, a medical doctor or a physicist?

If you want to attack me for seeking out the opinions of climate scientists in matters of climate, be my guest.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   20:39:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: go65 (#31)

blah blah blah.

Maybe you should try crying and pouting along with your whining and tantrum foot-stomping.

It's over.

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   20:48:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Wood_Chopper (#33)

Maybe you should try crying and pouting along with your whining and tantrum foot-stomping.

I'm more than happy to debate global warming, but if the debate starts with "it's a fraud because I say so" there's not much of a point of going forward.

Is there something specific you want to dispute and if so, on what basis?


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   20:54:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: go65 (#32) (Edited)

Who do you go to when you feel ill, a medical doctor or a physicist?

LOL. What an extraordinarily poor analogy.

To answer your inappropriate question, if I am sick I will see a doctor. If there are are lot of people who are sick, I may consult a biologist.

Back to "climate change"...

The climate of the earth is always changing. We came out of a major ice age tens of thousands of years ago. Did SUVs cause the "warming"? No. We also came out of a minor ice age a few hundred years ago. Were SUVs the culprit? No.

Physics has already explained the warming and cooling cycles the earth has experienced.

This entire global warming scam is all about RED politicians trying to wrap themselves in GREEN in gain power for themselves. Socialism is out of style. Communism is out of style. Fascism is out of style. So, now they are all Greens.

Regardless of what name they call themselves, they are all still evil tyrants.

That's the bottom line.


“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-11   20:55:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: go65 (#34)

See ya around, plumber.

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   21:00:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: jwpegler (#35)

The climate of the earth is always changing. We came out of a major ice age 20,000 years ago. Did SUVs cause the "warming"? No. We also came out of a minor ice age a few hundred years ago. Were SUVs the culprit? No.

First off, my compliments to you for actually trying to engage in a debate. OK, now to answer your question. Yes, the climate has always changed, and will always change. What is different now is that the only plausible explanation for the accelerated warming over the last 30 years is rising CO2. We know that CO2 is rising, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know by analyzing CO2 that the bulk of it is coming from human activity. There are simply no other plausible explanations to explain what we've seen over the last 30 years.

Now then, there is much disagreement as to the expected rate of warming and the impact. I've heard everything from minimal change to catastrophic change (e.g. the Venus effect), but again, the disputes over the impact/rate of change don't change the underlying argument - the earth is warming as a result of CO2 accumulation as a result of human activity. That people want to simply dismiss global warming because of politics is disturbing.

Physics has already explained the warming and cooling cycles the earth has experienced.

Again, the only plausible explanation for the accelerated warming over the last 30 years is buildup of atmospheric CO2. There's no other explanation that's viable (feel free to offer one).

This entire global warming scam is all about RED politicians trying to wrap themselves in GREEN in gain power for themselves. Socialism is out of style. Communism is out of style. Fascism is out of style. So, now they are all Greens.

And again, if that's your view then you need to offer up some alternative that explains accelerated warming over the last 30 years.

If you want to simply wave your arms, dismiss the data, and claim it's all a fraud, then as I told wood chucker, there's no point in continuing the discussion.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:02:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Wood_Chopper (#36)

See ya around, plumber.

Good day.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:04:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: go65 (#37) (Edited)

What is different now is that the only plausible explanation for the accelerated warming over the last 30 years is rising CO2.

Here is one of many articles that I could post from different physicists which demonstrate that why your assertion is incorrect.

The bottom line is that earth wobbles over long periods of time. The wobbles correspond to climate change. Right now we may be at the end of a long warming period and entering a cooling period.

Wobbling Earth Triggers Climate Change

Regular wobbles in the Earth's tilt were responsible for the global warming episodes that interspersed prehistoric ice ages, according to new evidence.

The finding is the result of research led by Russell Drysdale of the University of Newcastle that has been able to accurately date the end of the penultimate ice age for the first time.

The new dates, which appear in the today's edition of Science, show the end of the second last ice age occurring 141,000 years ago, thousands of years earlier than previously thought.

Using information gathered from a trio of Italian stalagmites, the research has punched a hole in the prevailing theory that interglacial periods are related to changes in the intensity of the northern hemisphere summer.

Drysdale and colleagues suggest that the Earth emerges from ice ages due in large part to changes in the tilt of the planet in relation to the sun, otherwise known as its obliquity. This affects the total amount of sunlight each hemisphere receives in its respective summer, rather than the peak intensity of the solar radiation during the northern summer.

Sediment on the sea floor contains accurate a record of what happened to the Earth's climate prior to the last ice age. But up until now dating the sediment and the evident climatic changes has not been possible.

Drysdale and colleagues overcome this difficulty by comparing the changes in the sea floor to similar material on the surface that can be accurately dated.

John Hellstrom of the University of Melbourne used a very sensitive mass spectrometer to measure the amount of uranium and thorium contained in samples taken from the three stalagmites in the Italian Antro del Corchia cave to date the material.


“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-11   21:16:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: go65 (#3)

It's not that unusual to see someone who is very bright and talented wander off into "crankhood" (especially in their twilight years).

Do you really believe that quote?

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-10-11   21:19:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: go65 (#15)

The science is pretty clear and compelling.

Then you're easily impressed. You read the "information" and think that it's a silver bullet.

By that same logic, more people die in hospitals, then anywhere else. Therefore, if you don't want to die, stay out of hospitals. Or another example, high rates of criminal activities occur in areas where there are lots of churches. The natural conclusion one could reach, is that churches cause crime.

Statistically, both conclusions are valid. However, they can't pass the sniff-test.

You need to get real.

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-10-11   21:31:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: jwpegler (#39)

Wobbling Earth Triggers Climate Change

Again, I am agreeing with you that there are a multitude of factors that can, and have caused climate change, but there's no evidence that anything other than CO2 is causing the accelerated warming we've seen over the last 30 years. There is no evidence that the current warming trend is due to wobbling.

However, there is evidence that changes in rotational axis over 40,000 years triggered the ice ages: http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html

Again, my point to you is that there are indeed a multitude of factors that can impact climate. But again, there is no viable explanation at this point that anything other than CO2 buildup is causing the rapid warming we've seen in the last 30 years.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:35:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Capitalist Eric (#41)

You need to get real.

Facts:

1. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, rising atmospheric amounts cause rising global temperatures

3. global average temperatures are rising in conjunction with rising CO2

4. Human activity is generating the majority of the accumulating CO2.

That is getting real.

Again, I'm open to debating any of the above if you want to offer plausible alternative explanations for the accelerated warming over the last 30 years. But if you want to join wood chopper in saying "it's all bunk because I say so" then I would question whether or not you are putting politics ahead of science.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:38:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: go65 (#42)

here's no evidence that anything other than CO2 is causing the accelerated warming we've seen over the last 30 years.

I just posted the evidence.

The earth has wobbled for billions of years.

The earth didn't stop wobbling when Al Gore decided make billions on this scam.


“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-11   21:41:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: jwpegler (#44) (Edited)

I just posted the evidence.

Re-read what you posted:

Regular wobbles in the Earth's tilt were responsible for the global warming episodes that interspersed prehistoric ice ages, according to new evidence.

There's no correlation presented between changes in wobble and changes in temperature. And, there's nothing that nullifies the data showing rising atmospheric CO2. If you are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you are denying physics. If you are denying that atmospheric CO2 is rising, then you are denying the evidence. That's certainly your prerogative, but I see you as smarter than the "it's all bunk because I say so" crowd.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:48:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: go65 (#43)

1. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, rising atmospheric amounts cause rising global temperatures

3. global average temperatures are rising in conjunction with rising CO2

4. Human activity is generating the majority of the accumulating CO2.

To ALL points: PROVE IT.

You keep spouting mumbo-jumbo bullshit. Bring HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not the manipulated data that the global-warming crowd was using to push their agenda.

Until then, you've got dick.

Oh, and for the record, the main component to the "greenhouse" effect... is water vapor. What, you gonna' try and outlaw water?

Interesting fact: temperature variations occur with solar activity. This is reflected in temperature variations across not only the Earth, but other planets as well. You gonna' say that humans are responsible for them, too?

The facts ARE clear. YOU are the crank.

LOL.

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-10-11   21:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Capitalist Eric (#46) (Edited)

To ALL points: PROVE IT.

Sure:

www.ipcc.ch/publications_...report_synthesis_report.htm

BTW, to be fair, the report is somewhat dated and was wrong in it's main conclusion - temperatures have risen faster than projected in the report.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:54:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Capitalist Eric (#46) (Edited)

Interesting fact: temperature variations occur with solar activity. This is reflected in temperature variations across not only the Earth, but other planets as well. You gonna' say that humans are responsible for them, too?

Of course solar variations cause temperature variations. But given the fact that we're at an eleven year minimum for solar activity, it's impossible to correlate change in solar activity with rising temperatures over the last 30 years. If anything, the minimum should have caused temperatures to "fall", not rise.

Overall the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960 (see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm). There is no correlation between solar activity and the warming we've seen over the last 30 years. Once again, we're back to rising CO2.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:56:45 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: go65 (#47)

www.ipcc.ch/publications_...report_synthesis_report.h tm

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

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   21:58:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Wood_Chopper (#49)

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

thousands of scientists disagree.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   21:59:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: go65 (#50)

thousands of scientists disagree.

many thousands of scientists agree.

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

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   22:04:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Wood_Chopper (#51)

many thousands of scientists agree.

let me know if you have an alternative theory for the warming of the last 30 years. Unfortunately your argument seems to boil down to "it's all bunk because I say so" putting you in the same camp as 9/11 truthers, and other conspiracy nuts.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   22:12:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: go65 (#48)

with rising temperatures over the last 30 years.

That hasn't been proven. Nice try. Next?

If anything, the minimum should have caused temperatures to "fall", not rise.

Indeed. That's what the data shows- minus, of course, your hysterical interpretations. And that's why the climategate scandal was so big- because the temperature averages are falling.

Next?

Overall the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960 ... There is no correlation between solar activity and the warming we've seen over the last 30 years.

Yep. Because the warming doesn't exist.

Once again, we're back to rising CO2.

False logic.

Your arguments are disturbingly weak. Can you provide ANY proof to the things you keep spouting?

I said it before, I'll say it again...

PROVE IT.

If you can't, then fine, admit it and we're done. If you can't even admit that you've got no CLEAR, EMPIRICAL data to back up your claims, and keep spouting this bullshit based on nothing, then I'll bozo you, and you can piss in the cooling winds, for all I care.

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-10-11   22:13:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: go65 (#47)

Sure:

www.ipcc.ch/publications_...report_synthesis_report.htm

Not Found

The requested URL /publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.h was not found on this server.

ROFLOL!!!!!!!

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-10-11   22:16:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: jwpegler (#39)

To: go65

Here is one of many articles that I could post from different physicists which demonstrate that why your assertion is incorrect.

Dude... I never figured go65 to be one of the idiot greenies...

He's crazier than a shit-bug.

LOL.

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-10-11   22:18:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: go65 (#52)

Unfortunately your argument seems to boil down to "it's all bunk because I say so" putting you in the same camp as 9/11 truthers, and other conspiracy nuts.

About as truthful as the rest of the bullshit you spout.

You won't debate what this thread is about: Lewis's letter. You resort to quoting the ipcc, a thoroughly discredited source as your evidence.

Debate this:

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

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   22:19:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Wood_Chopper (#56)

You won't debate what this thread is about: Lewis's letter. You resort to quoting the ipcc, a thoroughly discredited source as your evidence.

there's nothing to debate about Lewis's letter, he's entitled to his opinion and you need to understand that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree.

If Lewis has a theory to propose that explains the warming over the last 30 years without it being caused by human activity, let him offer it, and let him publish it subjected to peer review.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   22:26:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: go65 (#57)

If Lewis has a theory to propose that explains the warming over the last 30 years without it being caused by human activity, let him offer it, and let him publish it subjected to peer review.

The same "peer review" he speaks of in his letter here?:

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

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   22:29:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Wood_Chopper (#56)

(Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.)

with respect to the Montford book, various climate scientists have weighed in:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

and a review pointing out Montford's history of errors/hyperbole:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   22:30:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Wood_Chopper (#58)

The same "peer review" he speaks of in his letter here?:

are you seriously arguing that we should dismiss the peer reviewed process?

Do you actually have anything of substance to offer, such as an alternative explanation for why the planet is warming, or am I supposed to accept at face value that it is all a massive conspiracy because you say so?


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   22:31:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: go65 (#60)

Do you actually have anything of substance to offer

Yes. Care to debate it?

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

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   22:36:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Wood_Chopper (#61)

Yes. Care to debate it?

Sure.

But at this point all you can do is repost the same article time and time again without responding to any of the critiques.

So....we're done. Have a great evening.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   22:58:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: go65 (#62) (Edited)

Sure.

But at this point all you can do is repost the same article time and time again without responding to any of the critiques.

So....we're done. Have a great evening.

You've given no critiques of his letter posted below. You've done your best to avoid it, despite having it presented to you numerous times. You've done nothing but spout talking points that have been totally discredited in ClimateGate. You've given as your proof the IPCC, a totally discredited panel.

Global warming/climate change has been exposed as a fraud.

"It's dead, Jim".

To quote David Gilmour, "You'd better run." And keep running.

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

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   23:10:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Wood_Chopper (#63)

You've given no critiques of his letter posted below. You've done your best to avoid it, despite having it presented to you numerous times. You've done nothing but spout talking points that have been totally discredited in ClimateGate. You've given as your proof the IPCC, a totally discredited panel.

Uh no. Goodnight.


Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.

go65  posted on  2010-10-11   23:33:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: go65 (#64)

Uh no. Goodnight.

Uh, yeah. Goodnight.

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

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-11   23:36:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: jwpegler (#23)

Agree with all.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-12   9:45:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: go65 (#26)

Same here. Another DISCREDITED JUNK SCIENCE BOOK was 'Silent Spring' which is directly responsible for millions of dead children since it was published, via malaria. And of course there's the discredited science that smoking isn't harmful.

Babbling again, Congressman Grayson?

Sheesh, GO65. There are times where you just should not post.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-12   9:46:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: Badeye (#67)

Congressman Grayson

Congressman Grayson?

(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not?

(Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care.

Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-10-12   10:44:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Wood_Chopper (#68)

Congressman Grayson Congressman Grayson?

Thats how GO65 appears lately, when he makes things up, attributes it to me, and then asks for an 'explanation'.

Which is basically how that manaic Grayson is campaigning for reelection.

Grayson just got busted yesterday at Democratic Underground lying to HIS OWN SUPPORTERS....(chuckle)

You can't make this stuff up.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-12   11:17:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com