A Real Physicist Responds to the Climate Change Scam

[CrusaderFrank]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"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?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

 

[jc456]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

huh?

 

[mamooth]

Dredging up debunked nonsense from 2010?. The pickings are getting very slim indeed in denierland.

Multiple people have debunked Lewis's paranoid nonsense. Here are a few of them.

October 12 2010

Christian Science Monitor joins the scam machine 8230

Rabett Run Darth Data Destroyer

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...limate-complaints/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

Not the point, Pinhead. The Climate always changes in micro-variations, the question is what the fuck does a wisp of CO2 have to do with any of it. Real scientists are skeptical of the claim of the Marxist AGWCult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dredging up debunked nonsense from 2010?. The pickings are getting very slim indeed in denierland.

Multiple people have debunked Lewis's paranoid nonsense. Here are a few of them.

October 12 2010

Christian Science Monitor joins the scam machine 8230

Rabett Run Darth Data Destroyer

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...limate-complaints/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

None of which answers the letter in the OP

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dredging up debunked nonsense from 2010?. The pickings are getting very slim indeed in denierland.

Multiple people have debunked Lewis's paranoid nonsense. Here are a few of them.

October 12 2010

Christian Science Monitor joins the scam machine 8230

Rabett Run Darth Data Destroyer

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...limate-complaints/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"First use real science to identify and quantify the threats, then I’ll propose responses. First things first. I remember the motto that made the rounds at the first Sputnik in the late 1950s: When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles; scream and shout. Not a good answer to any human problem" Lewis response in the unread an attached NYTime post by KoolAid Snorter Mamooth

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

And your posts are causing it.
You should stop. For the children.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, some senile old fart 4 years ago decides he knows more than all the rest of the physicists in the world. But what do all the rest of the scientists think of global warming?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood
physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

The American Geophysical Union, which has more scientists studying global warming than any other scientific society.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.8 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives including ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).

The Geological Society of America, another group of scientists that deal directly with the Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

pdf version

The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.
.......................................................................................................................................

Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

The American Meteological Society, people that might know a bit more than most of our boobs here about climate and weather.

 

[Old Rocks]

American Chemical Society

Global Climate Change
PDF version

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

Position in Brief

• Reviews the science and recommends action on reducing greenhouse gases as well as climate change adaptation strategies
• Encourages continued research and funding into the effects of climate change, while also emphasizing the importance of educating the public on the issue

Climate Change Impacts
The Earth’s climate is the product of complex, highly dynamic, and often nonlinear, interactions among physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring at many scales in the atmosphere; at terrestrial, fresh water and marine surfaces; and in the depths of the oceans and landforms. While recent research advances in Earth systems science have greatly strengthened our understanding of prior and current climate properties and processes, our ability to quantitatively predict how the future climate will respond to continued and increasing greenhouse-gas and fine-particle emissions is still limited. Even more limited is our ability to precisely predict how the Earth’s ecological and human systems will respond to climate changes.

OK, fellows, your turn. Find me a Scientific Society, any where on Earth, that disagrees with these findings.

 

[saveliberty]

So, some senile old fart 4 years ago decides he knows more than all the rest of the physicists in the world. But what do all the rest of the scientists think of global warming?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood
physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

The American Geophysical Union, which has more scientists studying global warming than any other scientific society.

Which means they NEED the fraud to continue.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, some senile old fart 4 years ago decides he knows more than all the rest of the physicists in the world. But what do all the rest of the scientists think of global warming?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood
physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

The American Geophysical Union, which has more scientists studying global warming than any other scientific society.

Which means they NEED the fraud to continue.

OK, my dear little halfwit, explain the fraud. And the reason for the fraud. And present some real science in support of your explanation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"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." Hal Lewis referring to the AGWCult scam as perpetrated by the APS

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old Crock knows how to cut and paste.

TO bad he can not see the blatant anti-science wording in each of those pastes he has done. No true scientist would word their policy documents as such, violating every ethical and scientific standard by doing so, only a political whore would do this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is this how real scientists act, or is this more how Marxists act?

"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."

 

[elektra]

The only people qualified to speak about the effects of cosmic rays coming from the sun and solar system, is physicist.

It's about a molecules interaction with particles, .not how much CO2 is in an Ice sample.

 

[mamooth]

Is this how real scientists act, or is this more how Marxists act?

It's how senile paranoid loons make stuff up.

Birds of a feather. I suspect creeping senility is a problem with many of the deniers here.

 

[SwimExpert]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

Nor the blue sky prove it is happening.