A Real Physicist Responds to the Climate Change Scam

[rdean]

When Democrats want to ask an expert on science, they ask a scientist.

When Republicans want to ask an expert on science, they ask Fox.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

"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."

AGWCult member can't read or process the above sentence

 

[jc456]

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

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

What climate change have you experienced? You stated this in the past and to date, failed to provide your evidence. Let's see your evidence!

Keen observation and just plain old eye witness testimony, over a span of 20 years or so.What evidence would you accept? You want crap vomited up from the internet, cut and pasted , charts, scientific studies, graphs...that isn't proof, either. I don't know what the hell you really want. We will find out twenty or thirty years from now who's the dingbats from the realists. But by then, it will be too late. I don't know what else to say.

it's called an experiment. One that proves a hypothesis. Ever hear of it?

 

[jc456]

A Real Physicist?

cuz all the others have been "fake".

if one doesn't agree with the warmer, then one isn't a real physicist. It comes from the land of stupid. The land we all live in daily on this board. All of those warmers who can't produce the experiment that proves their point. None. Do you know that real scientists prove out their hypothesis by doing experiments? So where is the one that proves increasing CO2 by 120 PPM does something to climate? I've ben asking, Frank's been asking as well as other skeptics on here. Yet the stupids continue from the warmers. It is the stupid's club!!! Old Rocks, Jiminie, mannnnmoth, and others. Ask them for the experiement!!! keep asking them until they admit they don't have one.

 

[jc456]

When Democrats want to ask an expert on science, they ask a scientist.

When Republicans want to ask an expert on science, they ask Fox.

you mean they pay the scientist right?

 

[jc456]

And the government has a vested interest in fear mongering because that's how you control the sheep

Can you elaborate on this point a bit? How do those in government benefit from the acceptance of AGW? Specifically, please.

Well, you can throw loan guarantees to campaign donors.........

How does public acceptance of AGW have any bearing on giving loan guarantees to campaign donors?

and the stupid bucket claims another victim.

 

[jc456]

I am not a scientist, so take my posts with a grain of salt. But given gas prices, I pay less overall for heating my home in the winter, and more for water for landscaping, and water isn't like oil, a finite non renewable resource. And that's been going on now for more than 15 years. Exceptionally warm weather tied with less rain. This is provable through independent sources. People posting here on average, have to be in the same situation, I am sure there is proof enough in all that.

why do you believe oil is finite? Someone told you? Do you believe that oil is fossil fuel?

 

[jc456]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

 

[jc456]

I have banged around the mountains in the Western States since I graduated from high school. That was in '62. The Cascades, the Blues, Rockies, and even a bit in the Seirra Nevadas. In that time I have observed the recession of the glaciers, the earlier snow melts, and later start to snow seasons. While those are personel observations, they are corroberated by data from the weather services.

Now I am working steadily toward a degree in Geology. And the people that converse with at college, particularly the scientists, all state that they are very worried about the future. We really don't know just how this will play out, at what points the changes are no longer inconveniances, and become serious dangers to our way of life.

Hmm. So, I have a question. Lets say that starting this year, temperatures start to plummet for the next 5 years. Do you think your compatriots would advocate trying to heat our world to keep our climate a constant temperature?

Mark

Let's play that by ear, and see what happens.

well it hasn't heated up for 18 years. So what say you?

 

[mamooth]

jc, just because you would lie for a buck, don't project your own ethical failings on to normal people. We are not like you.

So, aside from your bedwetting conspiracy fables and high-pitched nasal whining, do you have anything to offer the discussion?

 

[jc456]

jc, just because you would lie for a buck, don't project your own ethical failings on to normal people. We are not like you.

So, aside from your bedwetting conspiracy fables and high-pitched nasal whining, do you have anything to offer the discussion?

and still no experiment!!

 

[jc456]

I'm waiting on debating the fact that 120 PPM of CO2 does something to climate. I have provided the experimental evidence from my side Herr Koch in 1901. I have been told I am full of crap, so I'm waiting on the experiment that proves that comment! You sir have failed to provide it as has every other warmer on here. The point is and has been it doesn't you say it does, prove it! If you can't arguing anything further on here is stupid!! and you and yours prove that daily. So produce the experiment or shut up!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm waiting on debating the fact that 120 PPM of CO2 does something to climate. I have provided the experimental evidence from my side Herr Koch in 1901. I have been told I am full of crap, so I'm waiting on the experiment that proves that comment! You sir have failed to provide it as has every other warmer on here. The point is and has been it doesn't you say it does, prove it! If you can't arguing anything further on here is stupid!! and you and yours prove that daily. So produce the experiment or shut up!

the Lab is a DENIER!!!

 

[mamooth]

why do you believe oil is finite?

Because the earth is finite in size.

Damn, you're stupid.

 

[jc456]

why do you believe oil is finite?

Because the earth is finite in size.

Damn, you're stupid.

then water is finite right?

And again, do you believe oil is from fossils?

 

[mamooth]

Yes, water on earth is finite.

No, fossils are stone things, and oil doesn't clearly doesn't come from fossils. You don't go the museum and squeeze dinosaur bones to get oil.

And If you've got a point to make, just have the guts to state it clearly.

 

[rdean]

When Democrats want to ask an expert on science, they ask a scientist.

When Republicans want to ask an expert on science, they ask Fox.

you mean they pay the scientist right?

Must be. Any Republican can tell you only Republicans have integrity.

 

[rdean]

Yes, water on earth is finite.

No, fossils are stone things, and oil doesn't clearly doesn't come from fossils. You don't go the museum and squeeze dinosaur bones to get oil.

And If you've got a point to make, just have the guts to state it clearly.

Where does the meat go?

 

[rdean]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

Morons, such as yourself drive me nuts. All you need is "Google" and "experiments that prove global warming" and 5 minutes of spare time and you can read about all the experiments you want. Right wingers are all alike.

Google

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, water on earth is finite.

No, fossils are stone things, and oil doesn't clearly doesn't come from fossils. You don't go the museum and squeeze dinosaur bones to get oil.

And If you've got a point to make, just have the guts to state it clearly.

Where does the meat go?