A Very Interesting Take on the "Green" Movement

[Old Rocks]

Lol

 

[Old Rocks]

A Commie, eek, a Commieeeeee......... Lift the skirts and dance around, screeching like a little girl.

Oddie, you are a hoot!

 

[Trakar]

...No, but I am ethical and please it is the leadership of those organizations not the body of the membership that agrees with the nonsense. The leadership is heavily invested in GW as a means for grants and academic advancement, not scientific endeavor. There's a huge difference between science and political advocacy, and that's what your boys do now...political advocacy...not science.

That's why you're losing the battle.

A curious conspiracy theory you present, I suppose you have some compelling objective evidence to support this rather outrageous claim?

AGU Release No. 10–39
15 November 2010
For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON—The American Geophysical Union’s board of directors has approved two new members who will bring expertise in science policy and communication: policy advisor Floyd DesChamps and author Chris Mooney. Their selection reflects AGU’s commitment to applying the results of scientific research to challenges faced by the global community, many of which are based in the geosciences.

Floyd DesChamps served as senior advisor on climate change to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee from 1997 to 2009, and was a co-author of the landmark climate bill, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (also called the McCain-Lieberman Climate Change Bill). He is currently a senior vice-president for the Alliance to Save Energy, where he develops the Alliance’s policy initiatives.

DesChamps has degrees in mechanical engineering and engineering management, and previously worked for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Chris Mooney is a journalist and author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future (co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum) and “Do Scientists Understand the Public?” a report of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He co-writes a blog with Kirshenbaum called “The Intersection” at Discover magazine which covers science’s interactions with politics and other realms.

Mooney was a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 2009-2010 and a Templeton-Cambridge Fellow in Science and Religion in 2010.

AGU bylaws authorize appointment of up to two members of the Board in addition to those elected by the membership. President Michael J. McPhaden exercised that option in bringing DesChamps and Mooney to the Board for approval.

AGU president uses his personal option to add a non scientist, environmental political activist to the Board of Directors!

I see nothing in this press release that supports your assertion that the AGU membership does not support the position statements of the AGU with regard to AGW?

 

[IanC]

so you ignore my last example because it does not fit your template even though it shows the thought processes going on with the AGU leadership.

OK, I'll try again.

Lewis was one of those who tried to burst the GW ‘bubble’. As he and his fellow physicists looked on dismay last year, the APS issued a statement in support of climate change. This statement contained language which was unheard of in the scientific community; specifically the word ‘incontrovertible’. As Lewis argues, nothing in science is that. Worse, shortly after this disgraceful statement was issued by the APS, the ‘ClimateGate’ scandal broke with publication of suppressed emails from East Anglia. But even then, the APS refused to change its stance. Goaded into action, Lewis and his colleagues collected 200+ signatures pleading for the APS to instigate a Topical Group to allow an “open discussion of the scientific issues” of GW. But Lewis and his colleagues were slapped down. Callan refused to allow such a thing to go forward. It was at this point that Lewis had had enough.

There’s only one problem. The GW ‘monster’ is a fraud. And it’s not just any old fraud; as Lewis describes it, GW is “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist”. So why is the scientific community – and the physicist community in particular – supporting this fraud? As Lewis outlined above, they’ve become addicted to the rewards of supporting GW – i.e., ‘trillions of dollars’, ‘fame and glory’ and ‘trips to exotic islands’. Indeed, they’ve become so addicted that they will lie, destroy documents, skew results and generally do all manner of ugly things to ensure they continue to be rewarded. And when they’re caught lying, destroying and skewing results – as was the case with Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ and Phil Jones’ suppression of evidence at East Anglia in London – the physicist community circles its wagons to protect the miscreants. And Professor Lewis knows the reason has nothing to do with scientific fact. “When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise.” Professor Lewis even confronts the president of the APS – Curtis G. Callan, Jr., of Princeton University. “Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.”

 

[IanC]

Hal Lewis' resignation letter-

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence. It was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be? How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison dêtre 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. (Montfords book organizes the facts very well.) I dont believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in) distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer explanatory screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other peoples motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I dont think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question. I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends. Hal

 

[Old Rocks]

and?

 

[Old Rocks]

Knew a geologist of about the same age with a distinguished career behind him that denied plate tectonics until he died.

APS responds to climate-change accusations - physicsworld.com

The American Physical Society (APS) has issued a strongly worded statement in response to a published resignation letter from a prominent member of the society. The letter, written by Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara accused the society of benefiting financially from climate-change funding. Addressed to the APS president, Curtis Callan, the letter calls global warming a "scam" and says that "the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it...has carried APS before it like a rogue wave".

Lewis, 87, who has been an APS member for 67 years, has had a distinguished career that includes serving on the US defence science board, the advisory committee on reactor safeguards and the nuclear safety oversight committee. Lewis writes that climate change is "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist," and that the APS has "accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it." He adds that Princeton University physics department, of which Callan is chair, "would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst."

Callan strongly denies that charge. "Do any members of the Princeton physics department perform research on subjects even remotely related to climate science? No,” Callen told physicsworld.com. “Would a hypothetical physicist engaged in such work be likely to shade the results of his or her work to hew to some "party line" demanded by a funding agency? That would be contrary to the ethical code subscribed to by all scientists I know."

 

[westwall]

Knew a geologist of about the same age with a distinguished career behind him that denied plate tectonics until he died.

APS responds to climate-change accusations - physicsworld.com

The American Physical Society (APS) has issued a strongly worded statement in response to a published resignation letter from a prominent member of the society. The letter, written by Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara accused the society of benefiting financially from climate-change funding. Addressed to the APS president, Curtis Callan, the letter calls global warming a "scam" and says that "the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it...has carried APS before it like a rogue wave".

Lewis, 87, who has been an APS member for 67 years, has had a distinguished career that includes serving on the US defence science board, the advisory committee on reactor safeguards and the nuclear safety oversight committee. Lewis writes that climate change is "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist," and that the APS has "accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it." He adds that Princeton University physics department, of which Callan is chair, "would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst."

Callan strongly denies that charge. "Do any members of the Princeton physics department perform research on subjects even remotely related to climate science? No,” Callen told physicsworld.com. “Would a hypothetical physicist engaged in such work be likely to shade the results of his or her work to hew to some "party line" demanded by a funding agency? That would be contrary to the ethical code subscribed to by all scientists I know."

Ahhh yes the ever popular referal to "expertise". "If you don't have a PhD in climatology you can't possibly understand what we do" nonsense. They are correct, they don't use proper scientific protocols and in the immortal words of Keith Briffa "I can't reproduce my own work" so if even they can't reproduce their own work (a basic underpinning of the scientific method, but what would they know about science? they're activists first and very poor scientists second) how would a real scientist be expected to reproduce their non existent work? When the dog eats your raw data (I am of course referring to that paragon of research Jones) how is it possible to check their work?

So yes, if you are not a climatologist it is IMPOSSIBLE to do such horribly flawed work. They are truly the champs at screwing up basic scientific methodologies.

 

[Big Fitz]

I came across this transcript of a interview with a BBC commentator and it was very enlightening. I found this section particularly interesting, in that is truly shows that the environment is the furthest thing from their minds, they are interested in controlling people and they will use any methods possible to get that control.

"TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.

ROWLATT: That is quite shocking. I bet you were
shocked, weren’t you?

TOWNSEND: I was angry. I wasn’t shocked. I was
angry because it really showed that they wanted
more. They didn’t just want to prevent climate
change. They wanted to somehow change people, or
at very least for people to know that they had to
change."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt

And now, from our "We coulda told you THAT!" department...

 

[Big Fitz]

...No, but I am ethical and please it is the leadership of those organizations not the body of the membership that agrees with the nonsense. The leadership is heavily invested in GW as a means for grants and academic advancement, not scientific endeavor. There's a huge difference between science and political advocacy, and that's what your boys do now...political advocacy...not science.

That's why you're losing the battle.

A curious conspiracy theory you present, I suppose you have some compelling objective evidence to support this rather outrageous claim?

You're new here. Start reading the threads in the Environment and Energy section. Lots of info there. Lots of crap too but start reading. Westwall's provided hundreds of links to good data.

Ole Crocks... well... he's just a poo chucking chicken little in search of the truthiness he agrees with; and that means only things that say the world is going to end, it's all man's fault and we're gonna die... tuesday.

 

[Trakar]

Lewis was one of those who tried to burst the GW ‘bubble’. As he and his fellow physicists looked on dismay last year, the APS issued a statement in support of climate change. This statement contained language which was unheard of in the scientific community; specifically the word ‘incontrovertible’. As Lewis argues, nothing in science is that. Worse, shortly after this disgraceful statement was issued by the APS, the ‘ClimateGate’ scandal broke with publication of suppressed emails from East Anglia. But even then, the APS refused to change its stance. Goaded into action, Lewis and his colleagues collected 200+ signatures pleading for the APS to instigate a Topical Group to allow an “open discussion of the scientific issues” of GW. But Lewis and his colleagues were slapped down. Callan refused to allow such a thing to go forward. It was at this point that Lewis had had enough.

Just my opinion, but Lewis had no reason to remain a member of the APS a long time before his resignation.

A couple of questions:

1) Doesn't it seem a bit duplicitous to argue that the president, board and the overwhelming majority of members who responded to polling, who stated that they agree with the organization's postion statement on AGW, don't represent most members views, but that one disgruntled contrarian who knows nothing of climate science and who has a history of conservative political activism, burns his Depends and leaves an odiferous leaking trail out the door of the organization, does represent the view of most members?

2) How many other members joined him in resigning over this issue that you say they agreed with him about?

for reference: http://www.aps.org/membership/statistics/upload/counts2010.pdf

 

[Trakar]

...So yes, if you are not a climatologist it is IMPOSSIBLE to do such horribly flawed work. They are truly the champs at screwing up basic scientific methodologies.

You want to see what a couple decades of political pandering and influence (and perhaps more than a touch of dementia) can do to a once brilliant physicist's mind, take a look at Lewis' 1988 book: "Technological Risk" - Technological risk - Google Books

 

[Trakar]

You're new here. Start reading the threads in the Environment and Energy section. Lots of info there. Lots of crap too but start reading. Westwall's provided hundreds of links to good data...

I actually work for a living (at least for a few more years) and really am not interested in wading through much more of the irrelevent and unsupported rhetorical claptrap than I already do in the few threads I already participate on here. If you'd like to discuss the science of AGW, I'd be happy to join you in that discussion. If Westwall has provided actual scientific data and evidences elsewhere, I find it amazing that he only offers such distorted and confused ramblings to support his rhetorical assertions in the threads I do participate in. Perhaps you can encourage him to share such in these threads?

 

[DiveCon]

 

[Big Fitz]

You're new here. Start reading the threads in the Environment and Energy section. Lots of info there. Lots of crap too but start reading. Westwall's provided hundreds of links to good data...

I actually work for a living (at least for a few more years) and really am not interested in wading through much more of the irrelevent and unsupported rhetorical claptrap than I already do in the few threads I already participate on here. If you'd like to discuss the science of AGW, I'd be happy to join you in that discussion. If Westwall has provided actual scientific data and evidences elsewhere, I find it amazing that he only offers such distorted and confused ramblings to support his rhetorical assertions in the threads I do participate in. Perhaps you can encourage him to share such in these threads?

Not on him to educate you. Be your own research monkey. Most of us here work for a living and don't have time or desire to carry you.

But if you wish to remain locked into your predetermined outcome that it's all man's fault (seems a little obvious from your posts), that's fine too. You'll be exposed to the data as it is relevant, like cancer to chemotherapy.

 

[westwall]

You're new here. Start reading the threads in the Environment and Energy section. Lots of info there. Lots of crap too but start reading. Westwall's provided hundreds of links to good data...

I actually work for a living (at least for a few more years) and really am not interested in wading through much more of the irrelevent and unsupported rhetorical claptrap than I already do in the few threads I already participate on here. If you'd like to discuss the science of AGW, I'd be happy to join you in that discussion. If Westwall has provided actual scientific data and evidences elsewhere, I find it amazing that he only offers such distorted and confused ramblings to support his rhetorical assertions in the threads I do participate in. Perhaps you can encourage him to share such in these threads?

I am nearing retirement and have no desire to do your work for you. As you say tutoring is expensive. I have posted many peer reviewed articles and if you choose to ignore them that is on you not me. Of course there is a dearth of peer reviewed articles due to the corruption of the peer review process that was exposed by CLIMATEGATE but, once again you choose to ignore that well documented evidence. So be it. You are clearly not a sceptic in the scientific meaning of the word, as no scientist I know ever closes his mind to new evidence which you pretty clearly have.

 

[Trakar]

Not on him to educate you. Be your own research monkey. Most of us here work for a living and don't have time or desire to carry you...

LOL, if you say so.

You were the one who stated that he had something to offer, from what I've seen in the threads which I participate, if he does, he hides it well. I'm hardly against research, but wild goose chases are another story entirely!

 

[Trakar]

I am nearing retirement and have no desire to do your work for you...

If you say so.

The only thing I've ever asked you to do is to provide solid, compelling support for your own assertions, but if that's too much work for you, approaching retirement is the least of your issues.

 

[westwall]

I am nearing retirement and have no desire to do your work for you...

If you say so.

The only thing I've ever asked you to do is to provide solid, compelling support for your own assertions, but if that's too much work for you, approaching retirement is the least of your issues.

Yes that is true! I just had emergency open heart surgery with a sextuple bypass so I am also recovering from that! Be that as it may, you have provided 17 year old studies that are so clearly dated as to be laughable.

Here is a more current report from Woods Hole, you've heard of them I hope? Anyway they did a study in 2009 and here is the press release for that.

News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

 

[Big Fitz]

Not on him to educate you. Be your own research monkey. Most of us here work for a living and don't have time or desire to carry you...

LOL, if you say so.

You were the one who stated that he had something to offer, from what I've seen in the threads which I participate, if he does, he hides it well. I'm hardly against research, but wild goose chases are another story entirely!

He does have lots to offer that he's already put out there. It's up to you to move that lazy mouse over and read some other threads.