A Real Physicist Responds to the Climate Change Scam

[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 on the Fraud that is the AGW Scam

 

[Crick]

SourceWatch

Harold Lewis (b. 1923) is an Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara.[1] He is a former chairman of the JASON Committee which addressed the issues of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide as long ago as 1979. [2]


Although feted by climate skeptics the strange and sad case of Professor Harold Lewis exposes how much of climate denialism just does not add up and is instead dishonest. Professor Harold Lewis came to prominence when he severed his 67 years of membership to the American Physical Society. In his resignation letter he alleges “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.” and concludes “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”[3]

However in the 1990s at a time when climate science was less certain than it is today Dr Lewis wrote a book called Technological Risk [4] in which he states an opinion in line with the mainstream scientific view that fossil fuels are contributing to climate change.[5][6] In 1992 Dr. Lewis wrote "All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business." He writes further demonstrating considerable understanding of the topic "the bottom line is that the Earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases mainly carbon dioxide... The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases in the atmosphere." [7]

At what point Dr Lewis changed his view and why is unknown. But it begs the observation that if any of the allegations in Dr. Lewis's letter were true then some culpability would attach to himself as a government scientist in his earlier days. Moreover, as the author of Technological Risk why was Dr. Lewis writing as a convinced proponent of climate change in the 1990s instead of alerting the world to the "most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen" ?

The American Physical Society took the unusual step of responding to and rebutting Dr. Lewis's accusations. [8]

Within days of his APS resignation it was announced that Dr.Lewis had become a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation[9][10]

 

[SSDD]

Ad hominem after ad hominem....it is like a pavlovian response with you, isn't it.....you do realize that you lose every time you attempt to argue with a logical fallacy? Either you can rebut him or you can't...responding with a logical fallacy is a loss on your part.....of course you are an AGW believer...logical fallacy is part and parcel of your lot. It is, after all, all you have.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ad hominem after ad hominem....it is like a pavlovian response with you, isn't it.....you do realize that you lose every time you attempt to argue with a logical fallacy? Either you can rebut him or you can't...responding with a logical fallacy is a loss on your part.....of course you are an AGW believer...logical fallacy is part and parcel of your lot. It is, after all, all you have.

Strong words from a guy who believes we can't take infrared pictures of the sunlit side of Earth.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter if we come to an agreement on this or not. This is not a scientific issue, it is a political one. In order to do anything about the situation will require the combined political will of the entire planet. Even if we got the full agreement of every government on earth that climate change was happening, we would not get an agreement on what to do about it. For the people who would be making those decisions will be more interested in what that will mean to their own position than what it will mean to the environment.

We have already gone over the edge of the cliff. All we are doing now is arguing about how we are going to slam into the ground.

 

[jc456]

hilarious!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SourceWatch

Harold Lewis (b. 1923) is an Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara.[1] He is a former chairman of the JASON Committee which addressed the issues of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide as long ago as 1979. [2]


Although feted by climate skeptics the strange and sad case of Professor Harold Lewis exposes how much of climate denialism just does not add up and is instead dishonest. Professor Harold Lewis came to prominence when he severed his 67 years of membership to the American Physical Society. In his resignation letter he alleges “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.” and concludes “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”[3]

However in the 1990s at a time when climate science was less certain than it is today Dr Lewis wrote a book called Technological Risk [4] in which he states an opinion in line with the mainstream scientific view that fossil fuels are contributing to climate change.[5][6] In 1992 Dr. Lewis wrote "All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business." He writes further demonstrating considerable understanding of the topic "the bottom line is that the Earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases mainly carbon dioxide... The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases in the atmosphere." [7]

At what point Dr Lewis changed his view and why is unknown. But it begs the observation that if any of the allegations in Dr. Lewis's letter were true then some culpability would attach to himself as a government scientist in his earlier days. Moreover, as the author of Technological Risk why was Dr. Lewis writing as a convinced proponent of climate change in the 1990s instead of alerting the world to the "most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen" ?

The American Physical Society took the unusual step of responding to and rebutting Dr. Lewis's accusations. [8]

Within days of his APS resignation it was announced that Dr.Lewis had become a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation[9][10]

It was an "Unusual" step, because Hal called them out on the fraud they have perpetrated on the scientific community

"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 on the Fraud that is the AGW Scam

 

[SSDD]

Ad hominem after ad hominem....it is like a pavlovian response with you, isn't it.....you do realize that you lose every time you attempt to argue with a logical fallacy? Either you can rebut him or you can't...responding with a logical fallacy is a loss on your part.....of course you are an AGW believer...logical fallacy is part and parcel of your lot. It is, after all, all you have.

Strong words from a guy who believes we can't take infrared pictures of the sunlit side of Earth.

Why would you think that was not possible? How stupid are you? Again, you have just made up an argument of your own creation to rail against...it certainly isn't one of mine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ad hominem after ad hominem....it is like a pavlovian response with you, isn't it.....you do realize that you lose every time you attempt to argue with a logical fallacy? Either you can rebut him or you can't...responding with a logical fallacy is a loss on your part.....of course you are an AGW believer...logical fallacy is part and parcel of your lot. It is, after all, all you have.

Strong words from a guy who believes we can't take infrared pictures of the sunlit side of Earth.

Why would you think that was not possible? How stupid are you? Again, you have just made up an argument of your own creation to rail against...it certainly isn't one of mine.

Why would you think that was not possible?

According to your theory, the Earth cannot emit toward the hotter Sun.
Realize your fail yet?

 

[Crick]

I don't think it's possible for someone to be able to navigate the world on a day-to-day basis and yet be sufficiently stupid to hang on to these physics hallucinations against all the criticism presented. I have to conclude that you know this is complete crap. That makes you a flaming troll and you really ought to be bounced from the board.

 

[SSDD]

Realize your fail yet?

No...just your own fail. If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun...or do you have a magic camera that is made of nothing?

 

[SSDD]

I don't think it's possible for someone to be able to navigate the world on a day-to-day basis and yet be sufficiently stupid to hang on to these physics hallucinations against all the criticism presented. I have to conclude that you know this is complete crap. That makes you a flaming troll and you really ought to be bounced from the board.

Review history abraham...which one of us was actually banned for being a troll? Funny how you guys never seem to tire of accusing others of precisely what you are guilty of.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't think it's possible for someone to be able to navigate the world on a day-to-day basis and yet be sufficiently stupid to hang on to these physics hallucinations against all the criticism presented. I have to conclude that you know this is complete crap. That makes you a flaming troll and you really ought to be bounced from the board.

.....and coming from the disingenuous lying scumbag who claims he posted an actual CO2 experiment, that means a lot

"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 on the Fraud that is the AGW Scam

 

[SSDD]

I don't think it's possible for someone to be able to navigate the world on a day-to-day basis and yet be sufficiently stupid to hang on to these physics hallucinations against all the criticism presented. I have to conclude that you know this is complete crap. That makes you a flaming troll and you really ought to be bounced from the board.

.....and coming from the disingenuous lying scumbag who claims he posted an actual CO2 experiment, that means a lot

"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 on the Fraud that is the AGW Scam

Correction If I may. disingenuous lying scumbag who has already been banned at least once who claims he posted an actual CO2 experiment, that means a lot.

 

[SwimExpert]

Guys, I think you're being a bit harsh here. What he said was completely true, once you go back and readjust the data and the parameters for what "truth" means this week.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Guys, I think you're being a bit harsh here. What he said was completely true, once you go back and readjust the data and the parameters for what "truth" means this week.

AGWCult Science: When the data fails to validate your theory, you alter the data

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Realize your fail yet?

No...just your own fail. If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun...or do you have a magic camera that is made of nothing?

If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun

Why yes, the camera is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it is in space, after all.
Is that your explanation, the molecules on Earth don't emit, unless they know their photons will hit that cooler camera? Sounds very precise. No photons could accidentally miss the camera and hit the sun? Is that your claim?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

We shouldn't follow the AGWCult suggestions because they're moronic and destructive

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact,

Because spending trillions to slow our economy with more expensive, less reliable energy is a bad idea.

SINCE......all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

How much wind and solar do we need to replace our CO2 emitting energy sources?
No worries about all the land this will require? Pollution from solar panel manufacturing?
Battery manufacturing?

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why is warming bad again? Warmer is better than colder, after all.