another physics nobel laureate quits the APS

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    while much more understated than Hal Lewis last year, this is pretty direct condemnation

    he went on to say that it is OK to discuss the possible change in mass of a proton but not OK to discuss AGW theory. incontrovertable indeed
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,642
    Thanks Received:
    4,589
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,118

    I think his problem is he has a problem with the word incontrovertible....It is NOT science to think that something is 100 percent fact on a complex subject like global warming...Global warming is a theory that must be tested and looked at by the entire field of science and can be proven false. IT IS NOT A LAW.

    Global warming theory is put forward to explain why the earth is warming currently, which they put forward Co2 and other green house gasses as the drivers for that warming. IT IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX as POSITIVES DRIVERS ARE ONLY A PART OF THE EQUATION...There are negative drivers pushing down on them, but what ever remains is the imbalance, which warms or cools the planet. The big time scientist within the field are trying to figure how the system works...So there is a lot to understand about it.

    The guy makes a good point. Saying it is a FACT isn't science.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    yes, he obviously has a problem with the word in controvertable.

    I wouldnt be surprised if he has a problem with apportioning causation to an effect that is smaller than our ability to measure the system. and much smaller than the error bars in other known effects.
     
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,021
    Thanks Received:
    4,653
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,341
    Mathew:
    Better get RDean's permission for that..

    What's gonna happen when all these "national academies" and politicized professional groups start looking around and can't find endorsers for their carefully coordinated statements?
     
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    from the American Physical Society-
    from Bishop Hill-

    apparently we all read things into their statement that just werent there. I really cant understand how we jumped to conclusions from such a moderate, even handed and perhaps even wishy-washy statement.
     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Incontrevertible IS a bit of an overstament, I quite agree.
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    just like the APS is backing down from their climate change policy statement, expect many other institutions and govts to slip away from calling climate change predominantly man caused in the coming years. they will say, "yes we were concerned about warming but we never said it was only, or even mostly caused by CO2 emissions". and they will say it in such a pretty way that everyone will just shrug and say "that sounds about right".
     
  8. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
     
  9. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Good for him.

    And, I have to believe others with scientific integrity have also protested that statement in some form, as well. They just aren't as newsworthy.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    LOL. And does their 'scientific integrity' include lying about the evidence?
     

Share This Page