Renowned Physicist quits American Physical Society

[skookerasbil]

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.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[uscitizen]

Hal Lewis comes from the elite upper levels of science — a physics professor at University of California (Santa Barbara), and a member of the Defense Science Board (a group of the top 40 or so, advising the Pentagon).

From the OP article:

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Steerpike]

Anyone who knows, to even a modest degree, how science is conducted, can easily see that anthropogenic global warming has been over-sold to the public for political reasons. Anyone who says it hasn't is lying to you or isn't able to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

We do not know what the climate is going to do long-term, nor do we know the extent to which human contributions will drive things (or are driving them now). Best we can do is make the most educated guesses we can based on the available information. Anyone who tells you we know for CERTAIN is lying to you, or is a dupe. That goes for both sides of the debate.

This physicist is right about politics of issues like this driving heavy research dollars. And we know from reviewing the history of science that when money or the prestige of the scientific establishment is on the line, science can suffer for it.

 

[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.

No, he doesn't. I don't see anything about the science, just the politics. ....

Exactly. A lot of scientists know the two don't mix. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/133753-end-the-politicization-of-science.html

.... I don't think I missed anything. ....

I'm sure you don't think at all.

 

[Samson]

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. ....

Exactly. A lot of scientists know the two don't mix. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/133753-end-the-politicization-of-science.html

.... I don't think I missed anything. ....

I'm sure you don't think at all.

By "scam" Si Modo, and Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, isn't referring to the science, but instead, is referring to the scientific tradition of critical skeptacism that seems to have been strangely omitted from the GW institutional debate at the American Physical Society..

The thread isn't about whether or not GW is a reality: It's about the lack of concern among scientific communities to consider the issue with the usual measure of scrutiny.

 

[konradv]

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. ....

Exactly. A lot of scientists know the two don't mix. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/133753-end-the-politicization-of-science.html

.... I don't think I missed anything. ....

I'm sure you don't think at all.

Then explain it to me. Where does the science fail? If I'm not thinking, educate me. Telling a political story and calling AGW a scam, tells me nothing.

 

[konradv]

No, he doesn't. I don't see anything about the science, just the politics. ....

Exactly. A lot of scientists know the two don't mix. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/133753-end-the-politicization-of-science.html

.... I don't think I missed anything. ....

I'm sure you don't think at all.

By "scam" Si Modo isn't referring to the science, but instead, is referring to the scientific tradition of critical skeptacism that seems to have been strangely omitted from the GW institutional debate.

So, the science ISN'T a scam. Thank you. Why call it one then, when you mean exaggeration? If you don't, then who's REALLY perpetrating a scam?

 

[Si modo]

No, he doesn't. I don't see anything about the science, just the politics. ....

Exactly. A lot of scientists know the two don't mix. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/133753-end-the-politicization-of-science.html

.... I don't think I missed anything. ....

I'm sure you don't think at all.

Then explain it to me. Where does the science fail? If I'm not thinking, educate me. Telling a political story and calling AGW a scam, tells me nothing.

The physicist explained it to you and even gave an example of it (read the letter again and note his comment about climategate); I explained it to you and provided a link for clarity; and Samson explained it to you. I honestly don't know how it can be more clear.

 

[Steerpike]

Then explain it to me. Where does the science fail? If I'm not thinking, educate me. Telling a political story and calling AGW a scam, tells me nothing.

It's not that hard to see. We're talking about processes that develop over a geological timescale, and for which we have a small section of data to make use of. We don't have all the variables (we don't even know what all of the variables are, or what the relative importance is of the variables we do have). We don't have a control, which is important in science.

We're making the best educated guesses we can, making and then re-making models (which so far haven't proven to be great).

I think it is self-evident to anyone who knows even a little about science in general that we can't possibly have the level of certainty, in either direction, that is claimed by those involved in the political aspect of the debate.

 

[Si modo]

Exactly. A lot of scientists know the two don't mix. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/133753-end-the-politicization-of-science.html
I'm sure you don't think at all.

By "scam" Si Modo isn't referring to the science, but instead, is referring to the scientific tradition of critical skeptacism that seems to have been strangely omitted from the GW institutional debate.

So, the science ISN'T a scam. Thank you. Why call it one then, when you mean exaggeration? If you don't, then who's REALLY perpetrating a scam?

*sigh* When the logic of scientific discovery is violated, there IS no science being done. Thus, the scam - calling politics science.

 

[Samson]

Exactly. A lot of scientists know the two don't mix. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/133753-end-the-politicization-of-science.html
I'm sure you don't think at all.

By "scam" Si Modo isn't referring to the science, but instead, is referring to the scientific tradition of critical skeptacism that seems to have been strangely omitted from the GW institutional debate.

So, the science ISN'T a scam. Thank you. Why call it one then, when you mean exaggeration? If you don't, then who's REALLY perpetrating a scam?

No, Thank you for the excellent example of purposeful misinterpretation that continues to make GW such a controversial subject:

Rather than simply accepting the need to objectively investigage alternative causes for physical phenomena, you'd rather stifle the discussion before this normal process can be done.

This only adds to the suspicion that GW is a scam.

 

[westwall]

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.

Why don't you drop him an email. I am sure you will get a response. The use of the word incontrovertible is almost anathema to scientists, as it assumes a lack of scepticism, which is the life's blood of science.

 

[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.

Why don't you drop him an email. I am sure you will get a response. The use of the word incontrovertible is almost anathema to scientists, as it assumes a lack of scepticism, which is the life's blood of science.

Right. The logic of scientific discovery dictates that science proves nothing, rather falsifiable and well-supported theories stand until falsified.

Anyone who uses 'incontrovertible' when discussing the science is immediately suspect as a hack.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Why don't you drop him an email. I am sure you will get a response. The use of the word incontrovertible is almost anathema to scientists, as it assumes a lack of scepticism, which is the life's blood of science.

Right. The logic of scientific discovery dictates that science proves nothing, rather falsifiable and well-supported theories stand until falsified.

Anyone who uses 'incontrovertible' when discussing the science is immediately suspect as a hack.

"Certainty" is a HUGE word to many scientists, and it has been my experience that no credible scientist uses it other than extremely sparingly.

 

[Old Rocks]

And immediatly get gigged by people like yourself for putting 'may have, there is a strong possibility, given the evidence' ect' in their papers. If they state unequivocaly, you say that is bad science, if they state it in terms of possibility, then you say, see, they really don't know what they are talking about.

Simply, you, and the rest like you, do not like real science. Especially if it disagrees with your political version of false reality.

 

[Steerpike]

And immediatly get gigged by people like yourself for putting 'may have, there is a strong possibility, given the evidence' ect' in their papers. If they state unequivocaly, you say that is bad science, if they state it in terms of possibility, then you say, see, they really don't know what they are talking about.

Simply, you, and the rest like you, do not like real science. Especially if it disagrees with your political version of false reality.

At least that's honest science. No scientist should purport to have certainty when they don't. It sounds to me like you care more about politics than science, and that is unfortunate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then explain it to me. Where does the science fail? If I'm not thinking, educate me. Telling a political story and calling AGW a scam, tells me nothing.

It's not that hard to see. We're talking about processes that develop over a geological timescale, and for which we have a small section of data to make use of. We don't have all the variables (we don't even know what all of the variables are, or what the relative importance is of the variables we do have). We don't have a control, which is important in science.

We're making the best educated guesses we can, making and then re-making models (which so far haven't proven to be great).

I think it is self-evident to anyone who knows even a little about science in general that we can't possibly have the level of certainty, in either direction, that is claimed by those involved in the political aspect of the debate.

The last 50 years is geological time scale? We have seen, are continueing to see, accelerating warming. Warming to the point that we have had three years now during which both the Northwest and Northeast passage were open.

And those in the Royal Society and the other National Academy of Sciences seem to be pretty certain that we are the primary cause of the warming, and that the warming represents a danger to all of us.

 

[Old Rocks]

And immediatly get gigged by people like yourself for putting 'may have, there is a strong possibility, given the evidence' ect' in their papers. If they state unequivocaly, you say that is bad science, if they state it in terms of possibility, then you say, see, they really don't know what they are talking about.

Simply, you, and the rest like you, do not like real science. Especially if it disagrees with your political version of false reality.

At least that's honest science. No scientist should purport to have certainty when they don't. It sounds to me like you care more about politics than science, and that is unfortunate.

Really

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

Introduction
1 Changes in climate have significant implications for present lives, for future generations
and for ecosystems on which humanity depends. Consequently, climate change has
been and continues to be the subject of intensive scientific research and public debate.
2 There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature
increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still
subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes
are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of
the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate
responses.
3 In view of the ongoing public and political debates about climate change, the aim of this
document is to summarise the current scientific evidence on climate change and its
drivers. It lays out clearly where the science is well established, where there is wide
consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty. The
impacts of climate change, as distinct from the causes, are not considered here. This
document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of
Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in
2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties.