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.<>
As James Delingpole points out, Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making). Anthony Watts describes Prfoessor Lewis's letter in these terms...
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter
on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
Hear hear to that.
67 comments:
The Climate change 'consensus' is a scam. Plain and simple.
Take a look at the life and times of Canadian Marxist Maurice Strong who set the ball rolling with the Rio summit.
Oh and if you think Wikepedia is a safe source read this ...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/
'Despite being up for a restriction or a ban, rogue Wiki editor (and [pro climate change]Real Climate co-founder) William Connolley is still removing anything he doesn’t like when it comes to climate science. This time it’s wholesale removal of any reference to the American Physical Society resignation letter of physicist Hal Lewis, who resigned over the APS global warming position'
A rant about internal politics at the American Physics Society is "an important moment in science history"? Right, sure.
PS - you might also try this ...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/12/peer-reviewed-study-co2-warming-effect-cut-by-65-climate-sensitivity-impossible-to-accurately-determine/
oh ...
And Arctic sea ice is now growing at a record rate.
"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)"
So he's not, err, a climate specialist, then?
More details and comments on the excellent blog at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Glad to see this posted her too Iain.
There is no intellectual basis for warming alarmism left. Recent experience here suggests they will lay low.
However so much of the damage has already been done. The Climate change Act 2008 requires the destruction on 80% of our capacity for fire & thus about 64% of our electrical capacity (about 19% nuclear & 1% windmillery is CO2 free). Since electricity production & GNP are closely linked that means the destruction of 64% of our economy. All based on a lie which, as Professor Lewis makes clear, has been deliberately funded & promoted by parasitic big government politicos. The Act & most other "environmental" legislation should be repealed instantly if we, or more importantly our masters, want an end to recession.
Anybody want to run a sweep on how long it takes the BBC, ITN, C4 etc evening news to report this? Our broadcast media is pbviously wholly controlled by corrupt fascist parasites.
"So he's not, err, a climate specialist, then?"
Neither are most who fly the banner of AGW. Prof. Lewis seems to be a scientist in the empirical tradition, though, and in any case climatology is a blend of many specialisms, physics included.
Sadly, "climate science" these days seems to have more to do with statistics and politics ... "lies, damn lies, etc."
Impe
It is a political problem in many organisations, not least our own Royal Society, which has actually condemned the very core of science, reasoned debate and disagreement, in its haste to attract funding.
Billions of dollars have corrupted science, and serious people are starting to do something about it. Yes, I think that's important.
............
Climate specialists are self-selecting, in a field that formed specifically to study AGW. Would you complain that an atheist cannot criticise claims of the Christian Church because he is not a Catholic priest?
Any real scientist can see the flaws. climate research is a new field, based largely on physics but one that is simply unscientific.
Monday's Horizon on BBC showed the stark contrast between real science and "climate science".
The programme was on the ideas of the origin of our universe.
In the programme it was mentioned that ten years ago the physicists in question would not have been discussing this, because the idea that the universe began in the Big Bang was almost universally accepted. No serious cosmologist now thinks of the simple Big Bang/Inflation model as a likely start to our universe.
Even more telling is that they were discussing what came before the Big Bang. Professor Sir Roger Penrose, one of the greatest physicists alive, admitted that five years ago he would have told anyone who mentioned "before the Big Bang" that the concept was meaningless, as time did not then exist.
One theorist mentioned specifically as a vital advantage of his explanation that it could be disproved. That is core to the idea of science, and he clearly wanted to try to disprove it himself, and for others to try. This, in complete contrast tot he idea of consensus, is key to the very definition of science.
Finally, and most critically, no-one was even hinting that those disagreeing or those with different ideas should be silenced. There was no hostility to a diversity of opinion, and certainly the idea of blowing up those that did not subscribe to your theory, even as a weak joke, could not conceivably come out of this healthy intellectual environment.
Impe
It is a reasoned statement, far from a rant. It is about a vital political problem in many organisations, not least our own Royal Society (which has actually condemned the very core of science, reasoned debate and disagreement, in its haste to attract funding) and is critical to the future of liberal democracy.
Billions of dollars have corrupted science, and serious people are starting to do something about it. Yes, I think that's important.
............
Climate specialists are self-selecting, in a field that formed specifically to study AGW. Would you complain that an atheist cannot criticise claims of the Christian Church because he is not a Catholic priest?
Any real scientist can see the flaws. climate research is a new field, based largely on physics but one that is simply unscientific.
Monday's Horizon on BBC showed the stark contrast between real science and "climate science".
The programme was on the ideas of the origin of our universe.
In the programme it was mentioned that ten years ago the physicists in question would not have been discussing this, because the idea that the universe began in the Big Bang was almost universally accepted. No serious cosmologist now thinks of the simple Big Bang/Inflation model as a likely start to our universe.
Even more telling is that they were discussing what came before the Big Bang. Professor Sir Roger Penrose, one of the greatest physicists alive, admitted that five years ago he would have told anyone who mentioned "before the Big Bang" that the concept was meaningless, as time did not then exist.
One theorist mentioned specifically as a vital advantage of his explanation that it could be disproved. That is core to the idea of science, and he clearly wanted to try to disprove it himself, and for others to try. This, in complete contrast tot he idea of consensus, is key to the very definition of science.
Finally, and most critically, no-one was even hinting that those disagreeing or those with different ideas should be silenced. There was no hostility to a diversity of opinion, and certainly the idea of blowing up those that did not subscribe to your theory, even as a weak joke, could not conceivably come out of this healthy intellectual environment.
Impe
It is a reasoned statement, far from a rant. It is about a vital political problem in many organisations, not least our own Royal Society (which has actually condemned the very core of science, reasoned debate and disagreement, in its haste to attract funding) and is critical to the future of liberal democracy.
Billions of dollars have corrupted science, and serious people are starting to do something about it. Yes, I think that's important.
............
Climate specialists are self-selecting, in a field that formed specifically to study AGW. Would you complain that an atheist cannot criticise claims of the Christian Church because he is not a Catholic priest?
Any real scientist can see the flaws. climate research is a new field, based largely on physics but one that is simply unscientific.
Monday's Horizon on BBC showed the stark contrast between real science and "climate science".
The programme was on the ideas of the origin of our universe.
In the programme it was mentioned that ten years ago the physicists in question would not have been discussing this, because the idea that the universe began in the Big Bang was almost universally accepted. No serious cosmologist now thinks of the simple Big Bang/Inflation model as a likely start to our universe.
Even more telling is that they were discussing what came before the Big Bang. Professor Sir Roger Penrose, one of the greatest physicists alive, admitted that five years ago he would have told anyone who mentioned "before the Big Bang" that the concept was meaningless, as time did not then exist.
One theorist mentioned specifically as a vital advantage of his explanation that it could be disproved. That is core to the idea of science, and he clearly wanted to try to disprove it himself, and for others to try. This, in complete contrast tot he idea of consensus, is key to the very definition of science.
Finally, and most critically, no-one was even hinting that those disagreeing or those with different ideas should be silenced. There was no hostility to a diversity of opinion, and certainly the idea of blowing up those that did not subscribe to your theory, even as a weak joke, could not conceivably come out of this healthy intellectual environment.
"A rant about internal politics at the American Physics Society is "an important moment in science history"? Right, sure."
Up there with the 95 theses. Apparently. If someone who used to read the weather forecast says so it must be true.
Remember: Vote Blue Go Crazy
So, the American Physical Society has a poor approach to internal discussion. And a nuclear physicist doesn't like climate change.
This is hardly ground-breaking stuff. Yes, scientific organisations often have a bad approach to dissent and discussion. That is a good reason why "science" and "scientists" should not be treated as sainted paradigms of infallible truth like much of the media would have us (Richard Dawkins for example). It is hardly a crippling blow to the science of global warming.
The idea anyone would seriously suggest there's more money in pushing renewable energy than in defending carbon use, fossil fuels and our general current energy inefficient industrial practices is totally delusional.
The post from the uniquely anonymous "........." on how he "isn't a climate scientist then" is a common piece of alarmist dishonesty. Firstly because by "climate scientist" they don't actually mean climate scientist, such as Professor Fred Singer is, but "computer modeller doing climate". Secomdly because they never ever use this criticsm against people like railway engineer Pachauri, boss of the IPCC, or Attenborough, TV presenter, who push their claims. Thirdly because even the computer modellers are very bad computer modellers, indeed the report to Congrees specifically criticised them for not understanding the maths or statistics & not asking the advice of real statisticians & computer modellers. Fourthly because Professor Lewis, a physics professor at UCLA, than which you don't get no better scientificly, does understand the principles of science & it is scientific priciples which are at issue. Fifthly because exactly the same argument applies to "astrology science" & "creation science" - 2 "disciplines" whose practitioners all agree that theeir practice isn't fraudulent.
By definition every single alarmist who has used this argument to support "climate science" & not "astrology science" is a lying hypocrit, as is every single alarmist who has not denounced such hypocrisy in his fellows.
Does anybody know of a single politician or "climate scientist" pushing alarmism who is not personally a wholly corrupt lying hypocrit?
As far as I can remember from my science prof days;
'A scientist puts forward a theory and then spends his professional life endeavouring to prove it is WRONG'
'An entrepreneur offers a theory and then spends his professional life promoting it to gather support'
There seems to be too many separate scientific questions that have become entwined;
1. is the climate changing at a rate that is historically/statistically significant?
2. is human activity causing the change?
3. if it is, are there any changes we can make to our life style that will significantly affect the climate change?
4. if there are, is it politically feasible that the total world population can be persuaded to adopt the changes?
If the questions were discussed separately a more rational scientific approach would result.
Peter Watts has written a very informative screed about how the 'dirty' side of science makes its positions stronger long-term, not weaker. I recommend you read it all, but here's a quote from it:
There’s this myth in wide circulation: rational, emotionless Vulcans in white coats, plumbing the secrets of the universe, their Scientific Methods unsullied by bias or emotionalism. Most people know it’s a myth, of course; they subscribe to a more nuanced view in which scientists are as petty and vain and human as anyone (and as egotistical as any therapist or financier), people who use scientific methodology to tamp down their human imperfections and manage some approximation of objectivity.
But that’s a myth too. The fact is, we are all humans; and humans come with dogma as standard equipment. We can no more shake off our biases than Liz Cheney could pay a compliment to Barack Obama. The best we can do— the best science can do— is make sure that at least, we get to choose among competing biases.
That’s how science works. It’s not a hippie love-in; it’s rugby. Every time you put out a paper, the guy you pissed off at last year’s Houston conference is gonna be laying in wait. Every time you think you’ve made a breakthrough, that asshole supervisor who told you you needed more data will be standing ready to shoot it down. You want to know how the Human Genome Project finished so far ahead of schedule? Because it was the Human Genome projects, two competing teams locked in bitter rivalry, one led by J. Craig Venter, one by Francis Collins — and from what I hear, those guys did not like each other at all.
1) He appears to be nuclear phycisist, not a climate scientist.
2) He barely mentions climate change, as Impe says it seems to be a (maybe justified?) complaint about APS internal politics...
3)...otoh, maybe APS didn't play ball because they didn't see climate change as their remit, not really being physics and that.
4) James Delingpole is an arse of the highest order
5) 'Climategate' turned out to be a damp squib. No evidence was falsified, the use of the word 'trick' has been explained countless times, although they had no real excuse for breaching FoI.
6) If the raw data is released then you just get uneducated dolts like Delingpole and Dale trying to interpret it, not realising that they're not clever enough to so.
7) Which in turn attracts the tin foil hatters like moths round a lantern.
Dale, when are you going to realise that you aren't qualified to comment on the merits of the climate change debate? Your desperation to 'disprove' AGO just makes you look ignorant and stupid.
> ...James Delingpole's excellent blog...
If by "excellent" you mean "scientifically illiterate ranting", then, yes, it's 'excellent'.
And it's amazing how an evidence-free conspiracy theory from one retired person with no expertise in climate science is blown in to global significance by the deniers. It's a clear indication that they have nothing better to refute reality with.
More evidence that conservatives all over the planet are regressing to being modern day flat earthers.
For those who prefer a more reality-based assessment of this non-event: http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/11/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/
Interesting that you should post this one post away from the celebration of the great lady's birthday.
She is, of course, a scientist by training and we would do well to remember that she was one of the first in power to talk of the perils of increased levels of CO2.
Although something of a sceptic, at least with regard to what we can or should actually do and having seen this in the article yesterday, I can't help but think that it is a small squall in a tiny teacup.
It reads like a hissy fit, from a passed-over has-been. It touches on, and then loses in a fog of accusation; the real problem that scientific funding is all going one way.
I find it staggering that the climate obsession of the last ten years has swamped all other environmental research into areas that Conservatives should be caring about, such as resource depletion, de-forestation, habitat loss, water supplies, over-fishing, ocean acidification. Most of these have more immediate impacts and can have market led solutions.
At the moment we are spending billions on something we cannot control and watching our remaining resources be grabbed by the Chinese.
@ ................................. said...
"So he's not, err, a climate specialist, then?"
“That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting.”
Ernest Rutherford
This guy's only a physicist. Why would I take his word against that of Richard Black and Roger Harrabin at the BBC, who keep telling me that Mann made climate change exists and have far better scientific credentials?
Don't they?
"This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door."
What was your degree in again, Iain? Personally I'm a linguist, so wouldn't dare make such a sweeping statement. I assume you know better.
Clearly you can't read Andy, That was a quote from someone else. Not me.
>>It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
Hear hear to that.<<
I was under the impression that this was a blog which discussed politics.
Still, if you want to promote conspiracy theorists, it's your blog.
Blue,
Thanks for that excellent link. It's the perfect antidote to the told-you-so nuttery that has infested the internet since this sad old git Lewis decided to show the world what a sad old git he is.
So in the case of "Mainstream scientific community vs eccentric non-climatological scientist", it seems you'd rather side with the latter. Because for every misinformed rant there are a few hundred consenting scientists who'd have nothing to do with it.
How seemingly intelligent people can rubbish climate change just because it doesn't fit their world view and the solutions don't fit their politics is... depressing.
>>Clearly you can't read Andy, That was a quote from someone else. Not me.<<
A quote followed by "Hear hear to that".
Or was that a quote, too ?
;-)
"I would describe it as a letter
on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door"
What complete and utter rubbish.
This is an old guy who is confused and signally out of touch with modern science leaving in a huff. The APS has extensively rebutted his claims, which are long-running and absurd.
His statement that "trillions of dollars" are behind the global warming campaigners is paranoid tosh. If the trillions are anywhere, it is with the oil corporations and mining interests who heavily fund "climate scepticism" and find ready backers from right-wing moutpieces like your good self. For reasons we can only speculate on. And which have absolutely nothing to do with science, which you have shown over and over again to have not the least understanding of.
@ Nigel said...
"I was under the impression that this was a blog which discussed politics."
Politics is firmly at the centre of the AGW scam instead of science, so it is perfectly valid to discuss it here and other political blogs.
We can play out the scientific arguments but that's not exactly the point here. One member of the American Physical Society with very fixed views about Climate Change, unlikely to be supported by many other members of the Society, cashed in his membership in a blaze of publicity. The other 50 000 members stayed put.
So what?
Judging by most of the comments I had the patience to read, the conservative party is coming to resemble the Tea Party in the USA.
If I were a conservative, I would be very unhappy about this tendency to abandon evidence for wishful thinking.
Since I am not a conservative, I suppose I should be grateful that the party seems intent on abandoning science and the real world. Such extremism will keep them out of power for a long time.
Stephen Wigmore
"The idea anyone would seriously suggest there's more money in pushing renewable energy than in defending carbon use, fossil fuels and our general current energy inefficient industrial practices is totally delusional."
No. They would be correct. It is you that are deluded.
There is no serious money in defending carbon use; people risk their careers to refute the con of AGW. It is pure projection, knowing that the AGW proponents are just chasing money, their cheerleaders assume the opponents must be too.
There are billions, soon to be trillions of dollars in pushing global warming. Even teh oil companies' money is on that side, despite claims to the contrary (most stand to gain billions in carbon trading). Al Gore was slated to become the first carbon-trading billionaire, all while using huge amounts of energy himself.
Your are simply wrong.
P.S. Iain your software has some faults. I got multiple errors for the post being too long so reposted, and all got put up. Needs some attention!
FF
"...unlikely to be supported by many other members of the Society..."
Usual lies from the pro-AGW side about level of support? The whole point was he had enough support to bring a petition, which was ignored by the Society, contrary to its constitution. The dishonesty of the AGW proponents about the level of support is the core of the story.
Blue
"Evidence-free conspiracy theory?"
So evidence consisting of emails between conspirators discussing their conspiracy, and data and notes on its processing that had previously been hidden by that conspiracy (breaking two sets of British law, one requiring the publishing of all data relating to environment collected using government money, the other being the FOI act) does not count I take it?
In fact your own citing of "climate progress" was a great example of unscientific writing if you want one. They clearly have no idea what science is, or they would not have misunderstood Howard Lewis's letter so catastrophically and embarrassingly. Oh, and they must have completely missed the biggest thing to happen in "climate science" in the last decade,, the release of the CRU data and emails. Not very sharp, are they?
allnottinghambasearebelongtous
1. sorry, already shot that one down, above.
2 internal politics as they relate to climate change, which is always seen as an exception to the normal rules it seems.
3. The whole point is that they have a position on climate change, and did not consider the challenges to their position. So you are simply ill-informed on this one
4. Typical argument from the AGW crowd. Can't address teh argument or actually present the evidence (no, that would allow a challenge) so just attack the man
5. So repeating the guilty parties' defence is your argument? Evidence was falsified, the 'trick' was a con, the evidence did not fit so they cut off the graph. Not only was there no excuse for refusing the FOIA request, doing so was criminal, their conspiracy to do so was also criminal, and not publishing the information originally (even without an FOIA request) was also an offence (in the UK all government-sponsored environmental data must be published). So why do you think they committed three offences?
6. No, if the raw data was released the uneducated would be incapable of doing anything with it. It is too complicated. The fear was that the educated would see it's flaws. Maybe they tried to hide the fact that there are serious problems with data in the US, Canada, Russia, China, Australia New Zealand and Bolivia (these are just the flaws they hid but have since come to light). Oh, and all the world's oceans. So that's flawed data for 80% or so of the world's surface area. All showing more warming than justified by the best raw data available, by a bizarre coincidence.
In not releasing the data they are not involved in science, they are involved in advocacy. Science must be repeatable, others must be able to test their hypothesis and study their methods, including code, otherwise it is simply not science.
So you are advocating climate "science" that is not science at all.
If you were a scientist you would know all this, and would see what Professor Lewis saw.
Forget "climate science" you only have to look at the nonsense Tobacco Control pump out to see that something really needs to be done to restore scientific integrity.
A study that shows a 40% drop in heart attack admissions (using epedemiological guesstimates, obviously) that is then reduced to 17% without explanation and which is then shown to be nonsense when the real figures of actual people entering actual hospitals are released and it can be seen that there is actually no change at all. Third hand smoke being "proved" with the oh-so-scientific methodology of conducting a phone poll of the general public. Claims that asthma is increasing in children because of second hand smoke whilst ignoring the fact that exposure to second-hand smoke is falling, asthma is rising and with no reference to air pollution or other factors. Claims that "lethal" levels of smoke can travel down electrical wires to harm the health of people living in the same apartment block as smokers (see the US ASH website for this gem). Claims that the smoking ban has reduced heart attacks through statistical smoothing when the actual figures (and strangely, even the graph included in the "study" itself)show that 7 of the ten highest years for ill-health were before the ban), and so it goes on and on and on. Add in the fact that the biggest and longest study ever conducted (Enstrom and Kabat) demonstrated no link between ill-health and second hand smoke, most studies actually show no link and as many studies show a PROTECTIVE relationship as show evidence of harm (all of which goes unreported) and you see how corrupt these people are. Their studies are plainly flawed, if not invented, yet what can be done? There's no court where they can be exposed, no Tribunal that can be convened. There's just peer review, and if you are wallowing in billions of dollars as Tobacco Control is, you just smear all opponents, publish your own academic journals with review panels filled with your cronies and then use your mighty PR departments to release your "findings."
The AGW multi-billion dollar industry works in the same way. Make no mistake - many of their findings, as with Tobacco Control, are thoroughly debunked, but when they have the power to allocate funding and resources and the influence to ruin reputations, who is going to argue against it?
Indeed, only today, seeing the Labour MP trot out all manner of junk stats (including the Pell "40% heart attack reduction" study which was debunked by the BBC and appeared in the Times' "Top 10 Junk Stats of 2007" list) as a reason for keeping the Smoking Ban made my blood boil. Not because of the Ban itself, but because of the undue influence these people have and the seeming-immunity they have to having their toilet-paper "research" exposed as rubbish.
Forget "climate science" you only have to look at the nonsense Tobacco Control pump out to see that something really needs to be done to restore scientific integrity.
A study that shows a 40% drop in heart attack admissions (using epedemiological guesstimates, obviously) that is then reduced to 17% without explanation and which is then shown to be nonsense when the real figures of actual people entering actual hospitals are released and it can be seen that there is actually no change at all. Third hand smoke being "proved" with the oh-so-scientific methodology of conducting a phone poll of the general public. Claims that asthma is increasing in children because of second hand smoke whilst ignoring the fact that exposure to second-hand smoke is falling, asthma is rising and with no reference to air pollution or other factors. Claims that "lethal" levels of smoke can travel down electrical wires to harm the health of people living in the same apartment block as smokers (see the US ASH website for this gem). Claims that the smoking ban has reduced heart attacks through statistical smoothing when the actual figures (and strangely, even the graph included in the "study" itself)show that 7 of the ten highest years for ill-health were before the ban), and so it goes on and on and on. Add in the fact that the biggest and longest study ever conducted (Enstrom and Kabat) demonstrated no link between ill-health and second hand smoke, most studies actually show no link and as many studies show a PROTECTIVE relationship as show evidence of harm (all of which goes unreported) and you see how corrupt these people are. Their studies are plainly flawed, if not invented, yet what can be done? There's no court where they can be exposed, no Tribunal that can be convened. There's just peer review, and if you are wallowing in billions of dollars as Tobacco Control is, you just smear all opponents, publish your own academic journals with review panels filled with your cronies and then use your mighty PR departments to release your "findings."
The AGW multi-billion dollar industry works in the same way. Make no mistake - many of their findings, as with Tobacco Control, are thoroughly debunked, but when they have the power to allocate funding and resources and the influence to ruin reputations, who is going to argue against it?
Indeed, only today, seeing the Labour MP trot out all manner of junk stats (including the Pell "40% heart attack reduction" study which was debunked by the BBC and appeared in the Times' "Top 10 Junk Stats of 2007" list) as a reason for keeping the Smoking Ban made my blood boil. Not because of the Ban itself, but because of the undue influence these people have and the seeming-immunity they have to having their toilet-paper "research" exposed as rubbish.
Sorry Iain - not sure if that posted or not as my connection is playing up. Please delete if it's a double post (or if you only get this, just ignore me completely!)
Despairing Liberal
You are sadly ill-informed. The oil companies have their money foresquare behind the AGW fraud. They are big corporations, and all big corporations gain by regulation. They are big enough to influence it, to have bureaucracies to deal with it and to set up their operations to profit by it. They are behind many of the "renewable energy" cons.
It is utterly naive to deny the money behind AGW. Billions are already being made, but since they are being made by people screaming "climate catastrophe" those in authority, who dare not defy the watermelons in the envirofascist movement*, do not call them out on their profiteering.
Look into it. You are simply wrong, the money is on the side of the climate catastrophists, and has been for a long time.
*you know the ones who so want to silence dissent that even children who are not immediately compliant and ask to be convinced should be killed. Those are fascist by any standard
Doubting Richard, I assume the petition signed by "a few of us" is this one here: www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html.
It's short enough to repeat in its entirety:
"As current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned petition the APS Council to commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming. The assessment should consider findings representing the full scope of available scientific sources. The assessment is to be used as a basis for a new Statement on Climate Change that reflects the current state of scientific knowledge and its uncertainties. This Petition is to be provided to the membership for comment prior to action by the Council."
Mom and apple pie. Nothing to object to there and nothing that supports Harold Lewis's cynical views on AGW science.
I repeat. Very few members of the American Physical Society are likely to support Harold Lewis and he has brought forward no evidence that they do.
Iain,
Your tweet advertised this post as "Exposing the Great Climate Change Fraud?".
In fact it is a rather emotional letter complaining about the unavoidable fact that scientists have salaries and that their work costs money.
Insofar as it is an anti-AGW argument, it is a well-known and well aired response to the argument from the AGW side of the debate, which points to the fact that many anti-AGW apologists are supported by oil money.
Lewis' letter in no way exposes AGW as a fraud. To do that, he would have to show that man-made greenhouse gases do not have the physical property of trapping heat (as a physicist, Lewis might be competent to do this, but does not do so), that the gases have not increased (they have), and that the observed global temperature rises can be accounted for without factoring in anthropogenic greenhouse gases (they cannot).
For the vast majority of scientists, there is no doubt about AGW. Due to a highly effective media campaign, there is much doubt in the minds of non-scientists.
This doubt can be settled by appealing to the gambling instinct in this way:
In the end, this is not just an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment.
The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should
decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that IPCC view is wrong?
1 We will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty.
2 We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas.
3 We will have addressed our energy security problems.
4 We will increase prosperity in hot countries, through solar technologies.
Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics, and it turns out in the end (as per all reasonable expectations) that they are wrong?
We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment,
poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate
disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With
massive migration caused by environmental collapse.
Putting our money into decarbonising the global economy is definitely the best bet.
Iain
Your tweet advertising this letter from Lewis claimed that it was an expose of the great climate change fraud.
It is really just a complaint based on the unavoidable fact that scientists get salaries, and that science costs money. This is an old and well aired anti-AGW argument, a response to our charge that the sceptics are often funded by oil money.
For the vast majority of scientists, there is no doubt of the reality of AGW. I have a brief, user friendly summary of the science here
However, there is no need to trawl over the details of the science. Any sensible gambler would bet on the AGW side, as I will now show.
In the end, this is not just an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should
decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that IPCC view is
wrong?
1 We will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in
insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty.
2 We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas.
3 We will have addressed our energy security problems.
4 We will increase prosperity in hot countries, through solar technologies.
Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics, and it turns out in the end (as per all reasonable expectations) that they are wrong?
We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment,
poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate
disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With
massive migration caused by environmental collapse.
Putting our money into decarbonising the global economy is definitely the best bet.
Doc Richard says repeatedly tnhat there is a "consensus" among scientists on catastrophic warming.
If so he will be able to name 2 scientists, from among the large majority of the world's scientists who aren't government funded, who support this allegation.
My personal bet is that he won'tm based on the fact that thousnads of people innhundreds of newspapers & online sites have been unable to.
A consensus from which the majority of consensii are excluded is clearly fraudulent. It is obvious that it is statistically impossible for the divisionnbetween those paid by government being so divided by accident & points to Professor Lewis being absolutely right about the state being the source of this deliberate fraud.
I find Doc's contention that we should spend trillions (note thats thousands of billions of £s) & destroy most of our economy on the off chance that these scaremongers might not be wholly corrupt to be perverse. Anbody honestly believing that will also say that the government should give me a £1 billion postal order to get me to frighten away the giant invisible mutant Earth eating space goat whose existence cannot be as fully disproved as the warming alarn has been. I look forward to the entire eco-fascist bandwaggon supporting that one.
First, sorry for the double posting, which was due to the a website glitch - it rejected my first post as too long.
Neil, I hope this post may be helpful in clearing up your problem of the consensus. It does not differentiate on funding of scientists, but the links will give you lists to search, if you sincerely believe that non-government funding is a criterion of sound science. I hope you will understand that I am not going to do your research for you.
Neil raises the question of the funding needed to make the transition to a zero carbon economy. First, re-read what I said. The zero carbon economy is coming anyway, when we exhaust earth's capital stores of carbon. That will be in a few centuries, but in the process, as demand exceeds supply of oil and gas, prices are going to increase substantially, which will in any case have a huge impact on the world economy. In this process, renewable energy will become progressively more cheap than carbon based fuels, and the countries that are more advanced with renewables will have a competitive advantage. It is a tragedy that over the past 3 decades, UK politicians of both colours have held back the development of renewables.
Yes, it is going to cost money, but the vital thing to understand is that this money is sound investment, not only because it produces energy in which the fuel itself, uniquely, is totally cost-free, but also because the work created in energy conservation and renewable energy industries will offset impact of the recession that is looming.
There will be losers, as there always are, but in this case, the losers will be the megacorporations who deal in the irrational and damaging use of capital energy resources. People like Trafigura and BP.
FF
You really are clueless. That is nothing less than a demand that the APS takes into account actual science in its official position on the climate debate. Understated as it is in the petition that is very far from "mom and apple pie". If you actually paid attention the climate debate from a position other than sycophantic following of the "overwhelming evidence, but we won't show it to you" line, you would know that.
Well I win my bet Doc. Still nobody able to name 2 scientists who support catastrophism & aren't government paid. Lats see if any of the other vituperative alarmists here feel able to try.
I note none of the eco-fascists have even attempted to support their lies about hugh funding for sceptics. And, in a way possible only if the entire movement are wholly corupt, have also refused to withdraw their lie..
Doc's stuff about needing an incredibly expensive zero carbon economy" is purest rubbish for 2 main reasons.
Firstly the world is not going to "exhaust earth's capital stores of carbon" - carbon is an indestructible element, all that happens to it is that we combine some with oxygen which the sun in turn turns into wood, at an increased rate, which in turn...
Secondly because there is far more energy than we could ever get from carbon sources available from nuclear power cheaper than burning oil & 10 times cheaper than windmills. If alarmists actually wanted a low carbon economy, rather than just being parasites needing a scare story to leech of decent people.
Indeed it is factually obvious that any alarmist who believed there was even a slight possibility of their catastrophe story being in any way truthful would have to support massive nuclear contruction as the only practical way to cut carbon without returning the world to lower than Victorian standards of living. Since the eco-Nazis almost unanimously oppose nuclear there is no possible doubt that they are, one & all, wholly & completely dishonest, thieving, parasites who know perfectly well their scare story is a deliberate lie.
Doc Richard
"...letter complaining about the unavoidable fact that scientists have salaries..."
That is not the subject of the letter. There is a difference between paying scientists impartially and giving out billions in funding only to those that seek to confirm AGW. That is the corruption.
"The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science)...".
There is no consensus, in fact it might be that far more actual scientists (as opposed to campaigners, politicians and "climate scientists") are sceptical about AGW than convinced.
If there were a consensus that would not be conclusive. As I pointed out before, there was once a genuine consensus that the universe began in a Big Bang immediately followed by exponential inflation. Now it is a model almost universally rejected by cosmologists. The idea of that consensus is more important than proving (in its original sense, as in testing) is profoundly anti-scientific.
As I said to FF, if you actually paid attention the climate debate from a position other than sycophantic following of the "overwhelming evidence, but we won't show it to you" line, you would know that.
P.S. Doc, if I want to show a consensus in people who say that "complementary medicine" works should I point you to a website for the British Homeopathic Association?
As for the zero-carbon economy, there is a world of difference between waiting for a few decades as new technology becomes available, especially some interesting nuclear developments, and as the free market pushes us that way than forcing the change now. One will grow the economy, the other destroy.
Doubting Richard, as far as I can tell, the Americal Physical Society did what the memo said on the original submission. The submission is science-led and the Society is independent. Professor Lewis, it seems, wants them to do what he tells them to do. But that's untenable for an independent scientific body.
The one thing in the petition that the APS didn't do was to put the submission before all its members, which might have been wise given the subject's controversy. Committees can be infiltrated, as the British Institute of Physics was recently by a couple with a strong sceptic agenda.
At the end of the day, Professor Lewis just represents himself and not the membership at large, which is why this resignation is much less significant than Iain and others think.
On a side note, could I suggest you lay off the insults? It makes the discussion more pleasant.
Hello Neil
Pejoratives excised:/catastrophism/vituperative alarmists /eco-fascists /lies /wholly corupt, lie /scare story to leech of decent people /eco-Nazis
Which leaves us with his comment on carbon, and nuclear power.
In the evolution of the planet, carbon dioxide was fixed into oil and coal, which altered the atmosphere in a way that enables us to live in a balanced global climate. Since the industrial revolution we have been releasing this stored carbon back into the air in a big way, as CO2, which together with other released greenhouse gases is affecting the global energy budget. Without factoring in these GHGs we cannot explain or account for recent observed increases.
I am well aware of the capacity of photosynthesis to fix CO2, and am keen on reafforestation
There are 10 problems with nuclear power which I have set out here.
Thank you for raising these points.
Richard
DoubtingR
Pejorative excised: syncophantic.
"There is no consensus"
I am sorry, but there is. See my link. Consensus in never 100%. There are scientists who do not believe that smoking causes problems. Oddly enough, (or not, as the case may be) some AGW sceptics tend towards this position.
I agree, consensus is not immutable, and science does not do proof, only not-yet-disproven.
Which is why the wager argument that I put is so important. This is not a scholastic debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It has to do with the state of health of our home planet.
We follow the evidence, we have looked at the alternative offered by the sceptics, and we have made a reasonable decision to go with the scientific evidence, in the full expectation that further work will modify the picture. In particular, I am interested in the solar input, which is possibly a bit underestimated.
Here.
Thanks for your interest in this important topic.
Richard
As for the zero-carbon economy, there is a world of difference between waiting for a few decades as new technology becomes available, especially some interesting nuclear developments, and as the free market pushes us that way than forcing the change now. One will grow the economy, the other destroy.
This is the essence, isn't it? You put the ideal of free market economics above the reality of our ecological security.
We have been waiting 30 years for the market to respond not just to AGW, but also to the threat of resource depletion. The market has failed as signally as Communism failed. Free market is an impossible ideal, and has never existed, just as pure idealistic communism has never worked.
The market failure lies in the overweening power of the oil corporations, who have a vested interest in suppressing the competition. They have been funding the vocal minority of sceptics with huge success, but now, hopefully, their rearguard action is running its course.
I am aware that because of the conviction of your good self and others here that the free market is an ideal that must be pursued over all else, I am not going to persuade you, but at least we can have a mutually respectful debate.
You might want to read APS response
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
They unequivocally & categorically deny all his allegations.
More to the point, in a scientific matter they actually refer to the actual science (instead of vague slanders and allegations).
Specifically:
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
* Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
* The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
You can demonstrate the Greenhouse Effect from CO2 in a school lab, nad it is really hard to argue with that demonstrably testable kind of science.
There are lots of important debates about the economics & politics of Climate Change. Lomborg has some good points here. Do we care if temperature rises? What is the best way to mitigate that? Who should pay?
But criticizing the physics is really rather ludicrous.
Rupester WattsUp has already dissected the APS reply http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-aps-response-to-dr-hal-lewis-resignation/
Sticking purely to the point you raise as an example - I challenge you, or any other "environmentalist" to name any sceptic who says CO2 isn't a greengouse gas & isn't increasing. If you can do so well & good - if neither you nor any of the others can then, if any of you are in the remotest degree honest you will wish to apologise.
The important thing is not whether CO2 increase has an effect but whether, an increase of 1 part in 10,000 in the atmosphere is having a significant or even measurable influence. The APS reply seeks to confuse the matter by conflating the 2 questions - one assumes deliberately because these people are not ignorant. Wearing bl;ack shoes increases global temperature, because black absorbs more light. However it does not do so to a measurable amount.
Doc your reply is, yet again, counterfactual. You (& the rest of your kin) have not answered the request to name as many as 2 scientists of the many millions worldwide who are not paid by the state & who support yopur alleged catastrophic warming "consensus". Obviously nobody remotely honest can ever, claim such a consensus, if most of the consensii aren't in it.
Your alleged reasons against nuclear cannot be maintained by anybody honest & indeed aren't. The point stands that it is impossible for anybody to honestly believe CO2 is causing a catastrophe & to be opposed to an, indeed the only, effective way of stopping it. Either you support a massive nuclear build or you & all the other eco-fascists in the same boat, know for a certainty that your scare story is a deliberate lie.
As regard insults - I note that you have refused to dissociate yourself from the deliberate eco-fascist lie about there being more funding for sceptics than alarmists. Every single eco-fascist who is even 0.1% honest has dissociated themselves from that lie & I wish to give you another opportunity to reach that dizzy height of integrity.
On the nature of insults - it is not an insult to say things which are both true & relevent to the matter under discussion. If I were to accuse you of having pimples that would be an insult, even were it true. To say that you & virtually all your fellows are wholly corrupt, obscene, lying thieving child murdering eco-nazi parasites is both proveably true & relevent to whether your claims are credible & thus obviously not insulting.
I await your apology & retraction on the funding question.
Dear Neal
Pejoratives excised:eco-fascist, eco-fascists, eco-fascist, lie.
I invoke Godwin's law.
You have lost the argument.
:)
DocRichard...
Mike Godwin's original "Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." (see "Wired 2.10, October 1994) - specifically mentions "Hitler" and "Nazis".
Neil Craig uses neither of these terms, relying as he does, upon the general political supergroup description of "fascist". Therefore, I ajudicate your claim to a "Godwin" to have failed.
However, you have breached "Pogo's Law of inept research" by quoting Wikipaedia as a reference, and thus, as would many of my colleagues in university science departments, award you a "Fail".
Better luck next time.
And still awaiting Doc or anybody naming as many as 2 out of the millions of non-state funded scientists who they can claim as members of their "consensus".
And still awaiting the retraction of or evidence to support the pbvious lie about sceptics being funfed better than the 10s of billions given to alarmists by the state.
While both claims are total & deliberate lies must we accept them as representing the pinnacle of integrity to which any eco-fascist aspires?
FASCISM
1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) ...that stands for a centralized autocratic government ... severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Clearly the term applies.
Neil
Actiually, I have rread a lot of 'sceptics' who would deny that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, that levels are rising - or indeed that the Greenhose effect exists at all...
I am glad that you are beyond such silliness.
So uyou agree that the increase in CO2 will lead to a rise in temperature (so we agree on the physics), but you do not believe it will be as big an effect as portrayed (your model is different to the others).
The point you make is that the concentration of Co2 is too small to have an effect ("an increase of 1 part in 10,000 in the atmosphere is having a significant or even measurable influence").
You seem to be under the impression that small absolute numbers cannot have significant effects. That is not the case: try having a 1/10,000 part concentration of HCN in your body ;)
To answer that you just need the sensitivity of the temperature to CO2 concentration.
Simplistically, without greenhouse effect, the earth would be at average temp of -18C (Black Body); with it we are at +15C. So the existing small concentrations *already* mean greenhouse effect warms the Earth +33C. If the concentration of greenhouse gases doubled (eg from 300ppm to 600ppm), we might see a further +33C rise...
That is simplistic: the are other greenhouse gases to consider, there are feedback loops (positive & negative)
Arhenius modelled this 110 years ago and predicted a +6C rise if CO2 doubled. That's not so different from the latest scientific models.
One final point: look at the "cost of regret". Do you pay for fire insurance?
Rupe looks like we have a 3rd factual challenge. Either produce some evidence of sceptical scientists saying CO2 doesn't absorb light or acknowledge you have lied.
Or should we just go straight to acepting it as yet another example of the pinnacle of honesty to which you eco-fascists ever aspire?
Your ignorance of the case you are arguing is shown in your claim that "all the other" models show CO2 causing massive increases. This is untrue - what the alarmists models show is a relatively small increase due to CO2 (probably about 0.1C) & a multiplier feedback from unknown causes assumed, though the actual evidence suggests feedback is very likely to be negative, since no positive feedback destroyed the earth during the medieval warming period or other billions of years when it was more than 0.1C warmer than now.
Your ignorance of your own case is also shown by the fact that you do not know Arhenius recalculated & decided the rise would be 1.5C. This shows the imprecision on which this whole scare story is based.
If you honestly had "read a lot of sceptics" saying CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas you must have read far more of the sceptical case than I. How apt then that I know far more about the alarmist case, such as it is, than you.
Alternately it might just be that you are another obscene, wholly corrupt, thieving, child murdering, fascist parasite like apparently every other member of your movement from Caroline Lucus down (or perhaps up) with less than 1,000th as much integrity as my toenail clippings. I note you have not dissociated yourself from the previous liars & await your evidence.
Pogo
Neil also said:
"Since the eco-Nazis almost unanimously oppose nuclear..."
Close enough? Or would you wish to split more hairs because of the eco- prefix?
Cheers
Richard
(sorry about delay, my machine has been showing certificate problems with blogspot for past coupe of days)
There are plenty of skeptics claiming the greenhouse doesn't exist or that co2 isn't a greenhouse gas (same thing - if there's no greenhouse effect, there's no "greenhouse" gases. Eg:
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
Science author Heinz Thieme and 130 German scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory as an explanation of the mechanism of Earth's climate.
http://www.suite101.com/content/greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-violates-fundamentals-of-physics-a240478
and:
Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Falsified, Again
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-falsified-again/
"This is untrue - what the alarmists models show is a relatively small increase due to CO2 (probably about 0.1C) & a multiplier feedback from unknown causes assumed, though the actual evidence suggests feedback is very likely to be negative"
The models show a 1C increase from doubling co2, then feedbacks - from known causes - result in an additional 1C-3C warming. There are no other models because there are no other versions of physics.
NnN I note you neither attempt to defend the previous lies nor to dissociate yourself from them, thereby proving yourself precisely as honest as other eco-fascists.
It is hardly a surprise then that you are lying about what your links say. Not one of the scientsts you refer to says that CO2 does not have any effect at all they say “had no measurable effect” which is pretty much my position. Its effect is to small to be measure.
Incidentally that rather destroys your other point that the only calculation existing, indeed the only possible calculation of warming is 1C, which also incidentally denies the existence of Arhenius' calculation on which so many alarmistts depend (indeed both his calculations).
Of course a 1C increase would still leave us cooler than in previous history so no catastrophe then.
I have, once again, mentioned this thread to the Green party leadership & if they are in any way honest rather than wholly corrupt child murdering fascists (involved in far more murders of other races than Chancellor Hitler), they will be on here shortly to dissociate themselves from the various liars here.
Heinz Thieme is answered here.
There is also a useful page on "How do we know more CO2 is causing warming here, which brings in some empirical evidence, over and above the general fact that we cannot explain recent global temperature observations without factoring in man-made greenhouse gases.
In essence, Thieme is an engineer in power generation and distribution, retired, and is using a simple physical model that overlooks the complexity of the atmospheric system.
This is all rather tedious
None of you are right
The point is whether either side follows the scientific method
Given that the pro-AGW theorists have demopnstrably not followed the scientific method their hypothesis is not proven - indeed it is not yet a sensible hypothesis
Given that their thgeories are essentially based on some extremely dubious raw temperature dtaa and proxy temperatire daya which has been amended/'homogenised' to such a degree it cannot be reconstituted and their predictions rely on computer models of mindblowingly small levels of accuracy (or hugely wide margins of error,from the other point of view) and that there are gaping holes in their thories which founder on simple common sense they have not yet stated let alone provne their case
Starfish
Final, mathematics-style "proof" does not happen in science. Karl Popper showed that the best an hypothesis could achieve is not-yet-disproven.
Kuhn held that consensus is proof, which it is in a relative, sociological sort of way, and so according to Kuhn, AGW is "proven".
In that AGW could yet be disproven, the wager that I set out above shows that the safest way to proceed is to decarbonise the economy.
Cheers
Richard
So not a single person on the eco-fascist side able to provide good evidence for any of their 3 claims:
That the sceptics are better funded than the 10s of billions given by government to alarmists
That there exist as many as 2 scientists worldwide, from the large majority not paid by government, who support alarmism.
That the sceptics whose words Rupe claims to have read, showing ignorance about the qualities of CO2 actually exist.
More importantly NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON on the eco-fascist side has the slightest concern about the promotion of such total & deliberate lies.
Therefore it is a statistical certainty that any supporter of eco-fascism is personally a wholly & completely corrupt thieving parasite. Which sets a frame to Doc's assetion that the "safest" action is to give trillions of £s to parasites like him. Feeding parasites is the very last thing one should do.
I note further that not a single "environmentalist" can deny that their movement has killed far more people (minimum of 70 million killed by banning DDT, mainly African children) than Hitler - their faux outrage at being described as Nazis is thus no more honest than anything else they say.
Post a Comment