Renowned Physicist quits American Physical Society

[nraforlife]

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

BUT.....BUT Al Gore TOLD me ALL of the Scientists are Warmists

 

[Foxfyre]

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

BUT.....BUT Al Gore TOLD me ALL of the Scientists are Warmists

All or at least most of those getting government funding or otherwise profiting from AGW based policy are.

 

[nraforlife]

...........The First Republican Presidential Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution!
(after the debate, Ron Paul also said he didn't believe in evolution. That made four.)

...........................................

Given that the 'science' in evolution is nearly as bogus as the 'science' the Warnists hide behind being a skeptic regarding macro-evolution seems pretty damned reasonable.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yessireee........ Another, oh so educated redneck. Get back to us when you finish gradeschool.

 

[Annie]

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.

Oh really.
"The new guidance still makes it clear that human activity is one of the likely causes for climate change but now does so in a more considered way."

Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits 'uncertainties' | Mail Online

Also the Royal Society is not disputing global climate change but rather is questing the amount of predicted change.

Shouldn't science always be done in a considered way? Why now, 'more'? So they were doing less?

 

[Flopper]

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

Is ALGORE a scientist? His movie is more fiction than the Flintstones.

Could it be that most scientists are are left wingers?

"A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree. Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats."

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

There is some question about where Pew Research, who generally does a pretty credible job, went to find these 'scientists'. If it was at the university, I would not dispute those numbers at all. If it was in organizations that get most of their funding from government, I again would not dispute those numbers at all.

But since fewer than 25% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans at the time the study was done, that should be factored into the conclusion re ideology of scientists, and it wasn't.

And also it could be significant that more than 80% of engineers identify with the GOP or more conservative ideologies.

6% seems a little low, but I can't imagine very many scientist siding with the Right. AGW is the darling of the Right. Dissent on the theory of evolution is primary from right wingers. The Christian Right takes issue with science's claim for age of the earth, creation, and just about every theory with respect to Cosmology.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why is it that scientists that look at th evidence and say this doesn' seem to work, called deniars? They used to be called scientists, and the new ideas were refuted or found to be true. Nowadays it seems even when evidence is found that AGW alarmism is false or exaggerated, it is presented with the codicil that it must be wrong because it disagrees with Global Warming, and more study is needed.

There is a lot of evidence and counter explanations to the AGW theories but they are frequently dismissed out of hand just because of the power of the alarmist dogma. But the paradigm is changing and facts with logic are becoming strong again. And cognitive dissonance will cause a lot of kicking and screaming before the final position is reached. Which will probably be lukewarmer's idea of small changes and no catastropy.

There is a lot of evidence and conter explanations to the AGW theories but that is the difference.
They do not stand up to the scientific method like the AGW theories have. Same with evolution.
Gravity is a theory. Stood up to all of the tests by the scientific method.
The problem we have in America is that the majority of the public has no clue what the scientific method is and that the theory evolution has also stood up to the scientific method for over 100 years.
I give this easy test to the uneducated masses here in Georgia:
Start your car, put your hand over the muffler. Is the exhaust hot or cold? Multiply that times a billion. Wear a black shirt in the sun. Wear a white shirt in the sun. Which makes you hotter?
Soot, from pollution warms the earth. The water is warming as evidenced by my 45 years fishing the Apalachicola river basin in Florida. I vote Republican 90% of the time. My friends in Apalachicola are not political. The oystermen are not political. They know without a doubt that the water has warmed and man has done it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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?

Rain follows the plow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rain follows the plow is the conventional name for a now-discredited theory of climatology that was popular throughout the American West and Australia during the late 19th century.

In order to spur the settlement of the semi-arid plains, to further manifest destiny, "science" was used. Again we see history repeats itself as political ends pervert science. Imagine when the rain didn't follow the plow as science promised it would. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine. The dust bowl resulted.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society – reasonmclucus - My Telegraph

 

[IanC]

Why is it that scientists that look at th evidence and say this doesn' seem to work, called deniars? They used to be called scientists, and the new ideas were refuted or found to be true. Nowadays it seems even when evidence is found that AGW alarmism is false or exaggerated, it is presented with the codicil that it must be wrong because it disagrees with Global Warming, and more study is needed.

There is a lot of evidence and counter explanations to the AGW theories but they are frequently dismissed out of hand just because of the power of the alarmist dogma. But the paradigm is changing and facts with logic are becoming strong again. And cognitive dissonance will cause a lot of kicking and screaming before the final position is reached. Which will probably be lukewarmer's idea of small changes and no catastropy.

There is a lot of evidence and conter explanations to the AGW theories but that is the difference.
They do not stand up to the scientific method like the AGW theories have. Same with evolution.
Gravity is a theory. Stood up to all of the tests by the scientific method.
The problem we have in America is that the majority of the public has no clue what the scientific method is and that the theory evolution has also stood up to the scientific method for over 100 years.
I give this easy test to the uneducated masses here in Georgia:
Start your car, put your hand over the muffler. Is the exhaust hot or cold? Multiply that times a billion. Wear a black shirt in the sun. Wear a white shirt in the sun. Which makes you hotter?
Soot, from pollution warms the earth. The water is warming as evidenced by my 45 years fishing the Apalachicola river basin in Florida. I vote Republican 90% of the time. My friends in Apalachicola are not political. The oystermen are not political. They know without a doubt that the water has warmed and man has done it.

epic fail

no one has blamed heat produced by cars or even coal fired electric plants for heating the earth. it is the matter of how much CO2 restricts infrared heat loss into space. of course cars, pavement and other hear production do skew urban temperature measuements leading to exaggerated claims of warming.

edit- and the soot and other aerosols are the magic ingredient needed by the climate computer models to make them look even passably close to reality.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I give this easy test to the uneducated masses here in Georgia:
Start your car, put your hand over the muffler. Is the exhaust hot or cold? Multiply that times a billion. Wear a black shirt in the sun. Wear a white shirt in the sun. Which makes you hotter?

Among the most idiotic anecdotal pablum I have ever read.

 

[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.

Oh really.
"The new guidance still makes it clear that human activity is one of the likely causes for climate change but now does so in a more considered way."

Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits 'uncertainties' | Mail Online

Also the Royal Society is not disputing global climate change but rather is questing the amount of predicted change.

Yes really, and had you bothered to look at their prior declaration (something a person actually interested in learning something would do) you would have seen that it said man was the ONLY cause. So yes. They went from saying man was the only cause to saying may be a cause. I suggest you take an English class or three so you can understand the difference.

 

[westwall]

Why is it that scientists that look at th evidence and say this doesn' seem to work, called deniars? They used to be called scientists, and the new ideas were refuted or found to be true. Nowadays it seems even when evidence is found that AGW alarmism is false or exaggerated, it is presented with the codicil that it must be wrong because it disagrees with Global Warming, and more study is needed.

There is a lot of evidence and counter explanations to the AGW theories but they are frequently dismissed out of hand just because of the power of the alarmist dogma. But the paradigm is changing and facts with logic are becoming strong again. And cognitive dissonance will cause a lot of kicking and screaming before the final position is reached. Which will probably be lukewarmer's idea of small changes and no catastropy.

There is a lot of evidence and conter explanations to the AGW theories but that is the difference.
They do not stand up to the scientific method like the AGW theories have. Same with evolution.
Gravity is a theory. Stood up to all of the tests by the scientific method.
The problem we have in America is that the majority of the public has no clue what the scientific method is and that the theory evolution has also stood up to the scientific method for over 100 years.
I give this easy test to the uneducated masses here in Georgia:
Start your car, put your hand over the muffler. Is the exhaust hot or cold? Multiply that times a billion. Wear a black shirt in the sun. Wear a white shirt in the sun. Which makes you hotter?
Soot, from pollution warms the earth. The water is warming as evidenced by my 45 years fishing the Apalachicola river basin in Florida. I vote Republican 90% of the time. My friends in Apalachicola are not political. The oystermen are not political. They know without a doubt that the water has warmed and man has done it.

\


So riddle me this batman. How many cars were around when the Earth began warming up from the Little Ice Age? Why did the Earth suddenly warm up in 1850 from it's centuries long cold spell? Hmmmm?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why is it that scientists that look at th evidence and say this doesn' seem to work, called deniars? They used to be called scientists, and the new ideas were refuted or found to be true. Nowadays it seems even when evidence is found that AGW alarmism is false or exaggerated, it is presented with the codicil that it must be wrong because it disagrees with Global Warming, and more study is needed.

There is a lot of evidence and counter explanations to the AGW theories but they are frequently dismissed out of hand just because of the power of the alarmist dogma. But the paradigm is changing and facts with logic are becoming strong again. And cognitive dissonance will cause a lot of kicking and screaming before the final position is reached. Which will probably be lukewarmer's idea of small changes and no catastropy.

There is a lot of evidence and conter explanations to the AGW theories but that is the difference.
They do not stand up to the scientific method like the AGW theories have. Same with evolution.
Gravity is a theory. Stood up to all of the tests by the scientific method.
The problem we have in America is that the majority of the public has no clue what the scientific method is and that the theory evolution has also stood up to the scientific method for over 100 years.
I give this easy test to the uneducated masses here in Georgia:
Start your car, put your hand over the muffler. Is the exhaust hot or cold? Multiply that times a billion. Wear a black shirt in the sun. Wear a white shirt in the sun. Which makes you hotter?
Soot, from pollution warms the earth. The water is warming as evidenced by my 45 years fishing the Apalachicola river basin in Florida. I vote Republican 90% of the time. My friends in Apalachicola are not political. The oystermen are not political. They know without a doubt that the water has warmed and man has done it.

\


So riddle me this batman. How many cars were around when the Earth began warming up from the Little Ice Age? Why did the Earth suddenly warm up in 1850 from it's centuries long cold spell? Hmmmm?

And then you factor in trees planted where once none grew, and tens of thousands of acres of surface water where none once was, etc. etc. etc., and it's really difficult to make a case for human activity that generates heat causing all the warming on Planet Earth these days. For sure when you pave over several square miles and are generating heat and electricity and operating machinery, etc. the immediate environment will be affected. Nobody denies that. And chances are, all this human activity has affected global climate by a fraction or so degrees. I don't have any problem believing that.

But who is to say that human activity is not as 'natural' as activity of any other species on Earth? And there is essentially little or no evidence that any slight increase in global temperatures is having any global affect on human kind or other species. The Earth has always had climate shifts from cooler periods to warmer periods, and history shows us that both man and beast fare much better in the warm periods than they do in the cold ones.

There certainly is insufficient evidence of any major harm to justify handing over our freedom, choices, opportunities, options to global authorities who may or may not like us very much and/or have our best interests in mind. There certainly is insufficient evidence to consign whole populations of people to more generations of crushing poverty by denying them ability to exploit their own resources as we have done ours.

I strongly resisted George Bush pushing this AGW agenda and I strongly resist Barack Obama pushing this AGW agenda, and I strong advocate much cooler heads prevailing.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

But who is to say that human activity is not as 'natural' as activity of any other species on Earth?

Eugenicists.

Which pretty much covers most of the EnviroNazi eggheads.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yessireee........ Another, oh so educated redneck. Get back to us when you finish gradeschool.

Im laughing.........almost every day, something else comes up to decimate the climate crusaders!!!!

 

[konradv]

I wish he'd laid out why he thinks it's a scam in a scientific matter. He seems to be bashing the poltics and procedures of the organization, but doesn't tell us why it's a scam in the first place. BTW, why is that word any better than 'incontrovertible'? He sort of sounds like someone who was turned down for a grant and is having a hissy fit about it. Perhaps, he's just tired and it's time for him to retire.

 

[Si modo]

I wish he'd laid out why he thinks it's a scam in a scientific matter. He seems to be bashing the poltics and procedures of the organization, but doesn't tell us why it's a scam in the first place. BTW, why is that word any better than 'incontrovertible'? He sort of sounds like someone who was turned down for a grant and is having a hissy fit about it. Perhaps, he's just tired and it's time for him to retire.

Yes, he does tell you what the scam is and he does lay it out for you.

You just missed it.

 

[konradv]

I wish he'd laid out why he thinks it's a scam in a scientific matter. He seems to be bashing the poltics and procedures of the organization, but doesn't tell us why it's a scam in the first place. BTW, why is that word any better than 'incontrovertible'? He sort of sounds like someone who was turned down for a grant and is having a hissy fit about it. Perhaps, he's just tired and it's time for him to retire.

Yes, he does tell you what the scam is and he does lay it out for you.

You just missed it.

No, he doesn't. I don't see anything about the science, just the politics. I don't think I missed anything. I think you're seeing things that aren't there. If I really did miss it, please post the relevant passages.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it that scientists that look at th evidence and say this doesn' seem to work, called deniars? They used to be called scientists, and the new ideas were refuted or found to be true. Nowadays it seems even when evidence is found that AGW alarmism is false or exaggerated, it is presented with the codicil that it must be wrong because it disagrees with Global Warming, and more study is needed.

There is a lot of evidence and counter explanations to the AGW theories but they are frequently dismissed out of hand just because of the power of the alarmist dogma. But the paradigm is changing and facts with logic are becoming strong again. And cognitive dissonance will cause a lot of kicking and screaming before the final position is reached. Which will probably be lukewarmer's idea of small changes and no catastropy.

There is a lot of evidence and conter explanations to the AGW theories but that is the difference.
They do not stand up to the scientific method like the AGW theories have. Same with evolution.
Gravity is a theory. Stood up to all of the tests by the scientific method.
The problem we have in America is that the majority of the public has no clue what the scientific method is and that the theory evolution has also stood up to the scientific method for over 100 years.
I give this easy test to the uneducated masses here in Georgia:
Start your car, put your hand over the muffler. Is the exhaust hot or cold? Multiply that times a billion. Wear a black shirt in the sun. Wear a white shirt in the sun. Which makes you hotter?
Soot, from pollution warms the earth. The water is warming as evidenced by my 45 years fishing the Apalachicola river basin in Florida. I vote Republican 90% of the time. My friends in Apalachicola are not political. The oystermen are not political. They know without a doubt that the water has warmed and man has done it.

So riddle me this batman. How many cars were around when the Earth began warming up from the Little Ice Age? Why did the Earth suddenly warm up in 1850 from it's centuries long cold spell? Hmmmm?

Here is what the Royal Society states concerning that in it's latest statement on global warming.

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

Climate forcing by greenhouse gas changes
28 Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the
natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing. Calculations, which are
supported by laboratory and atmospheric measurements, indicate that these additional
gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of around 2.9 Wm-2, with
an uncertainty of about ±0.2 Wm-2. Other climate change mechanisms resulting from
human activity are more uncertain (see later); calculations that take into account these
other positive and negative forcings (including the role of atmospheric particles) indicate
that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of around
1.6 Wm-2 with an estimated uncertainty of about ±0.8 Wm-2.
29 Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph
The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 6
36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.