Renowned Physicist quits American Physical Society

[westwall]

His reason for doing so? Their blanket approval of AGW and their violation of their own constitution to do so. As Dr. Lewis so eloquently put it "'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'".

His letter is a very interesting read and shows just why those "scientific organisations support for AGW" that olfraud loves to bleet about are pretty much nothing.

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

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/the-scientific-world-is-fracturing/

 

[blu]

if this is true, which I have been trying to confirm, you need to make the thread title much more appealing, this is incredibly disturbing news for the people who believe in global warming

 

[IanC]

He is one of the old timers. He remembers when data drove conclusions, not the other way around.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If this is the mask for the global power grab that will put us into world marxism and our wealth being spreaded to all nations then world world III is likely to come of it. If people find out global warming is one big power grab people will be pissed.

I'd rather have global warming be true, personally; knowing how little it took to set off world war I back in the early 20th century that is. Majors wars have been fought for less.

 

[Flopper]

When I look at Professor Lewis's background, there doesn't seem be any research on our atmosphere and climate change. He seems to be primarily a space scientist and not a climatologist. I'm sure he is a very smart man but does this make him an expert on global climate change?

Professor Lewis has research interests in two distinct areas: applications of chemistry to planetary sciences, and space development.

The former program includes modeling of chemical processes in the early Solar System, condensation-accretion models of the terrestrial planets and giant-planet satellite systems, the compositional relationships between meteorites, asteroids, comets, and planets, and the chemical evolution of planetary atmospheres and surfaces.

His other interests center on the characterization and economic development of the material and energy resources of near-Earth space. His recent publications include three popular science books, Rain of Iron and Ice (on comet and asteroid bombardment of Earth; also in German translation), Mining the Sky (on space resources for use in space and on Earth; also in German and Chinese translation), and Worlds Without End (on the nature and distribution of planets in the universe from ancient writings on the plurality of worlds to the current flood of observations of planets in orbit about other stars), all from Helix Books.

He also was technical editor of the University of Arizona Press technical volume Resources of Near-Earth Space and authored the recent book Comet and Asteroid Impacts: Quantitative Modeling of Hazards on a Populated Earth (Academic Press, 2000) as well as a revised edition of the upper-division undergraduate planetary science textbook Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System.

PtyS/LPL Faculty: Dr. John S. Lewis

 

[westwall]

When I look at Professor Lewis's background, there doesn't seem be any research on our atmosphere and climate change. He seems to be primarily a space scientist and not a climatologist. I'm sure he is a very smart man but does this make him an expert on global climate change?

Professor Lewis has research interests in two distinct areas: applications of chemistry to planetary sciences, and space development.

The former program includes modeling of chemical processes in the early Solar System, condensation-accretion models of the terrestrial planets and giant-planet satellite systems, the compositional relationships between meteorites, asteroids, comets, and planets, and the chemical evolution of planetary atmospheres and surfaces.

His other interests center on the characterization and economic development of the material and energy resources of near-Earth space. His recent publications include three popular science books, Rain of Iron and Ice (on comet and asteroid bombardment of Earth; also in German translation), Mining the Sky (on space resources for use in space and on Earth; also in German and Chinese translation), and Worlds Without End (on the nature and distribution of planets in the universe from ancient writings on the plurality of worlds to the current flood of observations of planets in orbit about other stars), all from Helix Books.

He also was technical editor of the University of Arizona Press technical volume Resources of Near-Earth Space and authored the recent book Comet and Asteroid Impacts: Quantitative Modeling of Hazards on a Populated Earth (Academic Press, 2000) as well as a revised edition of the upper-division undergraduate planetary science textbook Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System.

PtyS/LPL Faculty: Dr. John S. Lewis

Everything you say about him is true. However, you ignore, as do most alarmists, the fundamental fact that he knows how science is done. He also knows, therefore, when science is abused. That is why he resigned. Because he can see when the scientific method is perverted in order to attain a political goal.

This is also another of the reasons why people refer to the "science" of climatology as a religion. In no other branch of science is it so important to be one of the "annointed ones".
The most important advance in geology came not from a geologist but an astronomer who also happened to make major contributions to meteorology. He was one of the greatest polymaths ever. But according to the alarmists point of view his conclusions, even though accurate and world shattering in their impact don't count because he wasn't a geologist.

Next thing you know the scientists will be required to speak in Latin.

Do you see the problem with this line of thought?

 

[Old Rocks]

So, Walleyes, you are saying that the other Physicists in that society don't know how science is done? Same for the AGU, the GSA, and all the other Scientific Societies in the world?

 

[westwall]

So, Walleyes, you are saying that the other Physicists in that society don't know how science is done? Same for the AGU, the GSA, and all the other Scientific Societies in the world?

I believe the good Doctor knows more about science than you ever will. He has 25 years on me so I still have a long way to go as well, and had you bothered to read what I said, you would have seen where he is disgusted at the groups' becoming a political advocacy society, perverting science for a political or monetary gain.

So to answer your stupendously ridiculous question, no, they know how to do science...they just CHOOSE not to do it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, Walleyes, sure.

They don't parrot the Conservative brainless talking points, therefore they don't do science.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, looking forward to posting some of the lectures from the coming AGU Conferance concerning global warming.

 

[westwall]

Sure, Walleyes, sure.

They don't parrot the Conservative brainless talking points, therefore they don't do science.

Try reading the mans letter. I know he uses some large words and all that, but get your hands on a dictionary and read the whole thing, you may learn something.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I said it before, if I practiced science at any University I'd drag the Warmers by the ear into the lab and tell them, "Show me!"

 

[rdean]

His reason for doing so? Their blanket approval of AGW and their violation of their own constitution to do so. As Dr. Lewis so eloquently put it "'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'".

His letter is a very interesting read and shows just why those "scientific organisations support for AGW" that olfraud loves to bleet about are pretty much nothing.

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

The scientific world is fracturing « JoNova

He must be like 95 so you must be like 75? I'm guessing.

Did the science of climatology even exist 67 years ago?

 

[rdean]

I worked for an engineer once, who thought "computers" were a "fad".

 

[Flopper]

When I look at Professor Lewis's background, there doesn't seem be any research on our atmosphere and climate change. He seems to be primarily a space scientist and not a climatologist. I'm sure he is a very smart man but does this make him an expert on global climate change?

Professor Lewis has research interests in two distinct areas: applications of chemistry to planetary sciences, and space development.

The former program includes modeling of chemical processes in the early Solar System, condensation-accretion models of the terrestrial planets and giant-planet satellite systems, the compositional relationships between meteorites, asteroids, comets, and planets, and the chemical evolution of planetary atmospheres and surfaces.

His other interests center on the characterization and economic development of the material and energy resources of near-Earth space. His recent publications include three popular science books, Rain of Iron and Ice (on comet and asteroid bombardment of Earth; also in German translation), Mining the Sky (on space resources for use in space and on Earth; also in German and Chinese translation), and Worlds Without End (on the nature and distribution of planets in the universe from ancient writings on the plurality of worlds to the current flood of observations of planets in orbit about other stars), all from Helix Books.

He also was technical editor of the University of Arizona Press technical volume Resources of Near-Earth Space and authored the recent book Comet and Asteroid Impacts: Quantitative Modeling of Hazards on a Populated Earth (Academic Press, 2000) as well as a revised edition of the upper-division undergraduate planetary science textbook Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System.

PtyS/LPL Faculty: Dr. John S. Lewis

Yes, I do see something wrong with this line of thought. Is the professor qualified to disputes the findings of experts in geology, biology, botany, archaeology, anthropology, chemistry, as well as climatology? I think not. Also, I doubt seriously that Dr. Lewis's dissent will shake the the opinions of the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet.

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and even stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When I look at Professor Lewis's background, there doesn't seem be any research on our atmosphere and climate change. He seems to be primarily a space scientist and not a climatologist. I'm sure he is a very smart man but does this make him an expert on global climate change?

Professor Lewis has research interests in two distinct areas: applications of chemistry to planetary sciences, and space development.

The former program includes modeling of chemical processes in the early Solar System, condensation-accretion models of the terrestrial planets and giant-planet satellite systems, the compositional relationships between meteorites, asteroids, comets, and planets, and the chemical evolution of planetary atmospheres and surfaces.

His other interests center on the characterization and economic development of the material and energy resources of near-Earth space. His recent publications include three popular science books, Rain of Iron and Ice (on comet and asteroid bombardment of Earth; also in German translation), Mining the Sky (on space resources for use in space and on Earth; also in German and Chinese translation), and Worlds Without End (on the nature and distribution of planets in the universe from ancient writings on the plurality of worlds to the current flood of observations of planets in orbit about other stars), all from Helix Books.

He also was technical editor of the University of Arizona Press technical volume Resources of Near-Earth Space and authored the recent book Comet and Asteroid Impacts: Quantitative Modeling of Hazards on a Populated Earth (Academic Press, 2000) as well as a revised edition of the upper-division undergraduate planetary science textbook Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System.

PtyS/LPL Faculty: Dr. John S. Lewis

Yes, I do see something wrong with this line of thought. Is the professor qualified to disputes the findings of experts in geology, biology, botany, archaeology, anthropology, chemistry, as well as climatology? I think not. Also, I doubt seriously that Dr. Lewis's dissent will shake the the opinions of the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet.

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and even stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

"



"In line with other previous and contemporaneous proposals, in 1912 the meteorologist Alfred Wegener amply described what he called continental drift, expanded in his 1915 book The Origin of Continents and Oceans[24]"


That Meteorology that discovered plate techonics was Alfred Wegener that Westwall is talking about. In fact throughout history there is many cases of people outside of one field coming in and questioning and being right about things throughout history that a large group thought was bs and laughed at them only to be proven wrong.
So someone that is smart can come in and destroy such a thing called a consenus. There is very rarely a consenus within Science unless your talking about keplers laws or some of newtons...Or maybe The theory and law of gravity.

I do believe our planet has been warming, but I don't believe in the 4-6c stuff at all. 1c maybe of course possible.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Mathew, I hope you are correct. Because if you are not, we are in for one hell of a ride.


MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Reprint 2009-12

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

 

[westwall]

When I look at Professor Lewis's background, there doesn't seem be any research on our atmosphere and climate change. He seems to be primarily a space scientist and not a climatologist. I'm sure he is a very smart man but does this make him an expert on global climate change?

Professor Lewis has research interests in two distinct areas: applications of chemistry to planetary sciences, and space development.

The former program includes modeling of chemical processes in the early Solar System, condensation-accretion models of the terrestrial planets and giant-planet satellite systems, the compositional relationships between meteorites, asteroids, comets, and planets, and the chemical evolution of planetary atmospheres and surfaces.

His other interests center on the characterization and economic development of the material and energy resources of near-Earth space. His recent publications include three popular science books, Rain of Iron and Ice (on comet and asteroid bombardment of Earth; also in German translation), Mining the Sky (on space resources for use in space and on Earth; also in German and Chinese translation), and Worlds Without End (on the nature and distribution of planets in the universe from ancient writings on the plurality of worlds to the current flood of observations of planets in orbit about other stars), all from Helix Books.

He also was technical editor of the University of Arizona Press technical volume Resources of Near-Earth Space and authored the recent book Comet and Asteroid Impacts: Quantitative Modeling of Hazards on a Populated Earth (Academic Press, 2000) as well as a revised edition of the upper-division undergraduate planetary science textbook Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System.

PtyS/LPL Faculty: Dr. John S. Lewis

Yes, I do see something wrong with this line of thought. Is the professor qualified to disputes the findings of experts in geology, biology, botany, archaeology, anthropology, chemistry, as well as climatology? I think not. Also, I doubt seriously that Dr. Lewis's dissent will shake the the opinions of the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet.

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and even stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

Hmmm, the "main" branches of science are generally agreed to be Physics, Chemistry,
Astronomy, Geology, Oceanography, Paleontology, Meteorology, Biology, Zoology, and of course Medicine. These are the foundation sciences for all that have come after. Climatology is a relatively new "science" that requires a Bachelors degree in Geography (a subset of Geology) and effectively a minor in Computer Science specialising in most cases in Fortran, an obscure outdated language, and of course a sound foundation in Statistics to obtain a PhD.

The main branches of science on the other hand require extensive work in their fields as well as more than a little of most of the other fields as well. Medicine is of course the exception but most MDs I've had the pleasure of talking to were likewise well versed in Biology and frequently Chemistry and occasionally Physics.

Climatology in other words requires very little in the exact sciences to obtain a PhD. As my wife says about her PhD in Psychology "it was an easy advanced degree to obtain."

Therefore, it is my contention that a superior Physicist, renowned in his field can run rings around most climatologists when it comes to the application of logic, and a fundamental understanding of the world and how it operates.

Asserting that only climatologists are "smart enough" to "understand" their arcane (and to this date completely unproven in even the most remote sense) "science" is laughable and an insult to real scientists everywhere.

But if you are paying homage to religious aspcts of your belief system then yes I can see where your High Priests would feel compelled to keep educated, intellectuals away from their "data" or secret rituals or what have you. Can be letting any of those cult secrets out now can we.

 

[Charles_Main]

When I look at Professor Lewis's background, there doesn't seem be any research on our atmosphere and climate change. He seems to be primarily a space scientist and not a climatologist. I'm sure he is a very smart man but does this make him an expert on global climate change?

Professor Lewis has research interests in two distinct areas: applications of chemistry to planetary sciences, and space development.

The former program includes modeling of chemical processes in the early Solar System, condensation-accretion models of the terrestrial planets and giant-planet satellite systems, the compositional relationships between meteorites, asteroids, comets, and planets, and the chemical evolution of planetary atmospheres and surfaces.

His other interests center on the characterization and economic development of the material and energy resources of near-Earth space. His recent publications include three popular science books, Rain of Iron and Ice (on comet and asteroid bombardment of Earth; also in German translation), Mining the Sky (on space resources for use in space and on Earth; also in German and Chinese translation), and Worlds Without End (on the nature and distribution of planets in the universe from ancient writings on the plurality of worlds to the current flood of observations of planets in orbit about other stars), all from Helix Books.

He also was technical editor of the University of Arizona Press technical volume Resources of Near-Earth Space and authored the recent book Comet and Asteroid Impacts: Quantitative Modeling of Hazards on a Populated Earth (Academic Press, 2000) as well as a revised edition of the upper-division undergraduate planetary science textbook Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System.

PtyS/LPL Faculty: Dr. John S. Lewis

Everything you say about him is true. However, you ignore, as do most alarmists, the fundamental fact that he knows how science is done. He also knows, therefore, when science is abused. That is why he resigned. Because he can see when the scientific method is perverted in order to attain a political goal.

Exactly he is disputing the drive to make facts fit a conclusion they have already made.

You do not have to be an expert in Climate science to see when scientists are not following scientific method and instead are cherry picking data to support a political aim.

Or more to the case with them, to keep the money rolling in from those who have a political aim.

 

[westwall]

Well, Mathew, I hope you are correct. Because if you are not, we are in for one hell of a ride.


MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Reprint 2009-12

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

And it can't recreate what occured ten days ago. So what pray tell makes you think it can predict what will happen in 20 years? The assertions they make border on the absurd.
There is not a single piece of empirical data to support what they say...not one.