Renowned Physicist quits American Physical Society

[Flopper]

I think I'll stick with the opinion of these guys.

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
American Meteorological Society
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
FRrench Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think I'll stick with the opinion of these guys.

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
American Meteorological Society
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
FRrench Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science

And if they think it is going to warm up 4-6c over the next 90 years then I disagree. Only period that comes close it the younger dyas..

 

[Si modo]

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

He is an expert on scientific integrity.

He does not sell out science and the logic of scientific discovery for political advocacy.

 

[fyrenza]

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

That's just IT, OldRocks ~

WE'LL NEVER KNOW,

not until some sort of Topical Committee IS allowed to meet and discuss the empirical data.

It ISN'T that any of us think that WE, humans, aren't doing damage,

but we'd like to see a REAL assessment of actual FACTS, not just a money-grabbing SUCK UP to the financiers, who have every motive to push a load of crap out there for us to bow ourselves down to.

 

[Si modo]

Climatologists (and the advocates who play at science) either need to learn to do as scientists do, or just stop calling themselves scientists and/or invoking the name of science.

 

[Douger]

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.

Much, much, less.
" That thar Saddam dun trydta kill mah daddy"

 

[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.

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.

Andrei Sokolov

Researcher
PhD, Main Geophysical Observatory, 1986, Saint Petersburg, Russia
Phone: (617)253-6691

Address:
E40-431
Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
77 Massachusetts Ave.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 USA

Come on, dingbat Walleyes, you know damned well that much of the work concerning global warming has been done from the observations of Geologists and Geo-physicists.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

He is an expert on scientific integrity.

He does not sell out science and the logic of scientific discovery for political advocacy.

Just like Lindzen and Singer? Except, of course, when it comes to tobacco company money.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climatologists (and the advocates who play at science) either need to learn to do as scientists do, or just stop calling themselves scientists and/or invoking the name of science.

Really? Perhaps you should post as to why what they are doing is not considered science. Thus far, I have seen nothing to indicate you know anything about how science is done. Only the politics of the creation of doubt, and the denigration of real scientists.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Andrei Sokolov

Researcher
PhD, Main Geophysical Observatory, 1986, Saint Petersburg, Russia
Phone: (617)253-6691

Address:
E40-431
Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
77 Massachusetts Ave.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 USA

Come on, dingbat Walleyes, you know damned well that much of the work concerning global warming has been done from the observations of Geologists and Geo-physicists.

It's called model validation and falsifiability. You know, scientific stuff.

 

[Si modo]

Climatologists (and the advocates who play at science) either need to learn to do as scientists do, or just stop calling themselves scientists and/or invoking the name of science.

Really? Perhaps you should post as to why what they are doing is not considered science. Thus far, I have seen nothing to indicate you know anything about how science is done. Only the politics of the creation of doubt, and the denigration of real scientists.

The physicist took the words out of my mouth, so consider my opinion the same as his.

I know you don't understand much of what I argue because the logic of scientific discovery and scientific integrity are concepts foreign to you.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[boedicca]

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?

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD has certainly existed longer than that...or, in the case of climatology, used to exist.

 

[boedicca]

The Professor's Own Words:

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 d’être 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. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t 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 people’s 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 don’t 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

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' &#8211; Telegraph Blogs

 

[boedicca]

And I second the need to retitle this thread.

Jeebus - for such an important topic, the thread title does not encourage clickage. I found this thread only because I was thinking of starting a thread, and was curious if anyone else had read the professor's resignation.

 

[westwall]

I think I'll stick with the opinion of these guys.

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
American Meteorological Society
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
FRrench Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Feel free to. The Royal Society has just moderated their position on AGW and others will be folowing suit as their memberships revolt against the leadership.

 

[skookerasbil]

But wait West...............

I thought the science was settled?

WTF bro??????

 

[skookerasbil]

s0n........I thnk in an earlier post, I asked you to leave here and go visit some blind sheep site and post up you bogus, loaded links.

I take it back..............please stay...........me and Westwall would be lost without your stupid shit. Indeed...........this is our playground to educate all on the fraud that is "climate change"!!!!!


Later s0n.................

 

[rdean]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

Don't they believe that the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and the "Flintstones" is actually a "documentary"?