Top scientist resigns – admits Global Warming is a scam

[ECSNorway]

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

The following is a letter
to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor
Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa
Barbara.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

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)

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Black Aeronaut]

Global warming may be a scam, but air pollution is still air pollution. Anyone who believes otherwise need only spend a weekend in a major metropolitan area, say LA, or Tokyo. These are places where people definitely need to do things like drive more electric cars for running around the town - save that gas-burner for the long-distance trip. (That and it'll also go a long way to drive down gasoline prices... though the rate on electricity will most likely pick up some.)

[nemonowan]

Pity that the Climategate documents only laid bare that serious scientists are irked at the naysayers that keep dismissing their valid and honest research and conclusions.
But Prof. Lewis is certainly saying the truth about one thing: there is a lot of money to be made of corruption, as I am certain he knows firsthand. After all, such a burning of bridges as this can only be sold very dearly.

[ordnance11]

If the man is willing to stand by his principles as a scientist, I respect him for that. And I will agree that politics drives science nowadays, most of the time. The question on climate change for me is this: Is it better to act now while we are not at the probable tipping point or wait until we get a definite answer? In which case it might be harder, if not impossible, to reverse any runaway greenhouse effect and we end up looking like Venus as an extreme example. If we start moving away from reliance of fossil fuels, would that be a bad thing? The great thing about science is the ability to listen to both sides of the argument and let the empirical evidence sort it out. But we might not have the luxury of time in the case of a runaway greenhouse effect. I'd rather we start something now just in case, rather than wait till we have a clear cut case when reversing it would be much more harder if not possible.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Dartz]

Palm to face.

My opinion has always been that, when a scientist says something is 'incontrovertible', he is almost certainly wrong. Climate is such an uncertain thing in it's own right, than being 'incontrovertible' about it is highly dubious, I find.

Is the climate changing?

Yes. In fact, I'd find it odd for anyone to suggest that climate change isn't happening. Change is what the climate does. It's not some static and perpetual thing.

Are humans changing the climate?

It may be possible. It's definitely noticeable on a local scale with such things as urban heat islands, and artifical lakes affecting the local microclimate, which then go on to affect the world climate as a whole. (Weather is such a chaotic thing). Setting of a few nice-sized atomic bombs will probably cause a global cooling effect, and knock us back a few TL's to a point where we aren't able to have much more of an effect.

Can we stop it?

This I find rather silly. Do people have any idea how immeasurably powerful the forces at work are, or how vast the Co2 producing industry's are? Nearly every human activity on this planet produces a greenhouse gas. Most natural activities on this planet produce greenhouse gases anyway. I'm dubious about trying to reverse or mitigate the consequences of climate change, I think we'd be much better off changing with the climate, rather than trying to change the climate to us.

The 'green' idea is something that really does have trillions of dollars tied up in it. I'm not saying this is a bad thing as such. However, in certain areas I feel this may be counterproductive, and might actually be contributing to something that I feel is far more harmful to the planet on a longer term. Earth has been much hotter and cooler than it is right now. It will be much hotter and much cooler in the future. Most products these days are being sold as being 'greener' than the older models, urging people to upgrade to save the planet.

What happens to the old model?

It probably still works quite happily, but it's not as efficient. In an ideal world, it'd at least be recycled, but chances are it'll just get tipped out with the rubbish. So, all the energy and resources that went into producing that toaster, have no effectively been wasted. Mining, shipping, refining, further shipping, manufacture, more shipping and whatever else... and after three years it's junked for a model that's a couple of percent more efficient. Which has most likely been mined, shipped, refined, further shipped, manufactured and the same whole rigmarole all over again.

All the resources that go into toaster 1 are wasted. And then you have toaster 2 built more or less from scratch (Well, the steps after creation of Life Universe and Everything anyway). Which'll get junked for a model 3% more efficient than it. Recycling helps mitigate this, and is helping more and more... but it's still far from universal. There's still a resource (And Co2 if that's your poison) cost towards replacing it. A cost that most likely offsets the efficiency gains over the (probably shorter) life of the new toaster.

Marketing tells us that buying the newest, greenest appliance will save the world? Will it? I'd like to see some figures that back this up because to me, that seems a bit like bullshit. It feels counter-intuitive at the very least. It generally seems like it's better to keep something going for it's service life, rather than replace it because it's not the latest and greatest.

Anybody buying a Toyota Prius because it's more green than their current 3yo SUV is a moron. Consider all the processing that goes into building that Prius, compared to just driving the Gas Guzzler for a few more years until it finally decides it don't want to go no more. Then you buy your Prius or what have you (BMW 120d in my case. Just as efficient. More fun).

Planned obsolescence, and a consumerist culture, are far more dangerous to the environment, I feel, than just climate change. Especially since the current Climate Change craze appears to be fuelling itself of the consumerist culture, and the desire to *appear* to be greener than the neighbour. I fear it may end up being more destructive than the problem it purports to solve.

I'm not disputing that cleaner, greener cars and appliances are a good thing. They are. Electric cars are great for nipping around towns, and good fun to drive. These things have their place and their time. That time is when the car I'm currently driving as EoL'd, thank you very much, or the toaster is utterly FUBAR'd. Rather than buy a new one, I just replaced the frigging front suspension.... more than the car was worth, but cheaper than buying a new one, or a second hand one... and greener I feel.

There's also unintended consequences to consider. When we switched to CCFLs in this house from regular filament bulbs, I noticed the heating bill went up. Admittedly a bit imperical, but interesting to note.

Of course, all this is something of a gut feeling, and something of a justification of my own actions, but it does make sense.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ordnance11]

It's not can we stop..it's more of a case can we moderate it? If we don't throw that much greenhouse gases at an accelerating rate to allow the planet's mechanisms to adjust to a stable equilibrium of climate, it might not be a bad thing. We are already experiencing weather extremes in America that hasn't happened since the end of the Little Ice Age and is not accounted by solar radiation fluctuations. The global mean temperature has been climbing for the last 50 years. If the trend keeps going up, fighting for resources that we had taken for granted like fresh water between nations will be inevitable. An example would be the Galilee River. Which is shared by Israel, Syria and Jordan. What happens if the output is sharply diminished? You already have squabbles between Southern California, Northern California, Arizona and New Mexico for water. Care to see what happens when even 10 percent of that water is gone?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Ayiekie]

Ahahahahahahahaha, people are so fucking gullible.

Yes, one senior citizen scientist resigns, proving he clearly knows SO MUCH MORE than all the literally tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of scientists that disagree, to say nothing of the fact that global warming has been an accepted fact in scientific publications and literature for decades. Clearly only a massive conspiracy funded by whoever it is exactly that funds people who say things the oil and gas industries don't like can explain this!

[Rod.H]

I've been thinking this for awhile especially after seeing a documentary espousing that the entire Global Warming thing boiled out of a plan of Margaret Thatcher to break the UK Coal Miner unions. Therefore any "scientist" who could prove coal was bad, got given government grants to continue the research.

Still, the reduction of air pollution and a lessening of the reliance on fossil fuels is a good idea on many levels, for at some point in the future we're gonna run out of crude oil, and some of that gunk that's in the air is some nasty stuff.

I wonder if there's any research on the link between air pollution levels and rainfall, for doesn't rain need a certain type of airborne particulate to form? And if so, is too much of that type in the wrong region? Wouldn't help the rain fall dependent regions of the globe, if the rain's happening long before it should.

[Epsilon]

Where is his proof?
I mean, if its all a scam, certainly he can provide all the falsified data? The reams of statistics and measurements that prove some other hypothesis must be there, he can surely point to them?
----------------
Epsilon

[Logan Darklighter]

I think what he's saying here is that he tried to investigate the matter via the normal accepted process and was blocked at every turn by his peers. As Climategate has proven, it's -their- data that is in question.
I'm with Dartz on this. Is the climate changing? Sure it is! All the
time! But what's the actual cause? Is it Anthropogenic (manmade)? Or is
it the natural cycle of things? Well now the waters have been thoroughly
muddied by Michael Mann and friends. They almost had everyone convinced
of their POV but then, the most inconvenient thing happened. The truth
got out. Oops! Now who and what do we believe? Certainly not the CRU and
the IPCC any more!
I'm in total agreement as well with the idea
that the world of man is going to change because the climate is, not
the other way around.
Do you know how much warmer it was during
the time of the Roman Empire? Pretty damn warm by todays standards. It
was a part of the reason why the Roman Empire had it so good for
hundreds of years because of good, warm and long growing seasons
throughout the Empire. As it got noticeably colder near the last couple
hundred years and food production became more difficult, it contributed
to the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Dark Ages.
James Burke once half-joked (it was either in one of his Connections
series or The Day the Universe Changed, I can't remember now) that the
Dark Ages were dark because it was bloody cold!

I've said it before, here and elsewhere - are we so sure that a few
degrees warmer is a bad thing? Well the obvious counter-argument is 'not
if it keeps going!' And yes, if we got to the point of a runaway
greenhouse effect that would be bad. But based on the real data
(NOT-jacked with!) and historical record that we have, it doesn't seem
likely that's going to happen. It seems more likely that this is part of
a natural cycle.

Still, would it better to pollute less regardless of climate
change/global warming? Absolutely. As long as that new tech is actually
better/more productive than the old. Would I buy an all-electric car?
No. The tech isn't (quite) there yet. Though some examples have been
very impressive. (Tesla Roadster - WOW!) But I might buy a hybrid.
(especially these days with the cost of fuel skyrocketing.)

[Morganite]

I think what he's saying here is that he tried to investigate the matter via the normal accepted process and was blocked at every turn by his peers.

Yes. I was disappointed to see this turn into a discussion of global warming in general, because that's kind of a side issue in this context. The concerning thing here is that this organization is violating it's own rules to squash dissent. This, in itself, suggests they are not entirely confident of their own claims, but isn't really what I'd call conclusive. Nonetheless, even if everything they claim is 100% accurate, these are foul deeds.

-Morgan.

[ECSNorway]

I think what he's saying here is that he tried to investigate the matter via the normal accepted process and was blocked at every turn by his peers.

Yes. I was disappointed to see this turn into a discussion of global warming in general, because that's kind of a side issue in this context. The concerning thing here is that this organization is violating it's own rules to squash dissent. This, in itself, suggests they are not entirely confident of their own claims, but isn't really what I'd call conclusive. Nonetheless, even if everything they claim is 100% accurate, these are foul deeds.

-Morgan.

This is exactly my point. Regardless of whether or not Climate Change is in fact a) real, b) a serious danger, and/or c) human-caused, the science needs to be open to investigation by all interested parties. This kind of attempt to repress conflicting thought reminds me too much of the controversies surrounding, for example, Darwin and Galileo. If they were genuinely confident of their claims, they would have no issues with others investigating the question. That they have to resort to extreme measures to prevent the research from being questioned demonstrates pretty thoroughly that there is Something Rotten In Denmark.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[nemonowan]

I think what he's saying here is that he tried to investigate the matter via the normal accepted process and was blocked at every turn by his peers.

Yes. I was disappointed to see this turn into a discussion of global warming in general, because that's kind of a side issue in this context. The concerning thing here is that this organization is violating it's own rules to squash dissent. This, in itself, suggests they are not entirely confident of their own claims, but isn't really what I'd call conclusive. Nonetheless, even if everything they claim is 100% accurate, these are foul deeds.

-Morgan.

This is exactly my point. Regardless of whether or not Climate Change is in fact a) real, b) a serious danger, and/or c) human-caused, the science needs to be open to investigation by all interested parties. This kind of attempt to repress conflicting thought reminds me too much of the controversies surrounding, for example, Darwin and Galileo. If they were genuinely confident of their claims, they would have no issues with others investigating the question. That they have to resort to extreme measures to prevent the research from being questioned demonstrates pretty thoroughly that there is Something Rotten In Denmark.

True. It demonstrates pretty thoroughly that some paid shills keep abusing the normal process by permanently opening, re-opening, and re-re-opening investigations on widely agreed conclusions based on solid data. Because that way their patrons can claim that "there is no scientific consensus" on the subject, and delay the day it affects their bottom line and/or worldview.
Same as they did with pesticides, with tobacco, with creationism, etc, etc, etc.

[Dartz]

Money corrupts science.... on both sides. It's not as if the pro-Climate Change site isn't being funded by those with a vested interest in climate change being true either? It's a very easy chunk of mud to grab and fling. simply dismiss those who disagree with you as being in the pay of big - $INDUSTRY.

I get concerned when science is being used to drive a commercial agenda. Take a look at the labelling and advertising that announces something new and expensive as being green and friendly to the environment. There's a fair lot of money now behind the pro-climate change scientists too, isn't there?
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[nemonowan]

Money corrupts science.... on both sides. It's not as if the pro-Climate Change site isn't being funded by those with a vested interest in climate change being true either? It's a very easy chunk of mud to grab and fling. simply dismiss those who disagree with you as being in the pay of big - $INDUSTRY.

I get concerned when science is being used to drive a commercial agenda. Take a look at the labelling and advertising that announces something new and expensive as being green and friendly to the environment. There's a fair lot of money now behind the pro-climate change scientists too, isn't there?

1 - WHO ON EARTH could possibly WANT climate change to be true? An apocalypse cult? That is the main problem: it is very bad news and most people would rather believe it is not true until the effects are too great to deny. And by that time there won't be much we can do about it (if we haven't reached that point yet)
2 - When those who disagree are a very vocal minority of the scientific community, and they happen to be aligned with the position of the deepest pockets around, it is them who are primarily suspect. If all you care about is money, there is a lot more to go around in the side with less supporters, less evidence and more shouting.
3 - The commercial agenda of "green" companies isn't being driven by scientists but by marketers. Expect a lot more of that as more and more companies realize that they can also make profits by tweaking their old products and rebranding them "green"
4 - I should also point out a trend that climate deniers are starting to switch from "climate isn't changing" to "Ok, it is changing, but humanity couldn't possibly affect that so it is all natural and not our fault, keep calm and carry on business as usual"

[Dartz]

1 - WHO ON EARTH could possibly WANT climate change to be true? An apocalypse cult? That is the main problem: it is very bad news and most people would rather believe it is not true until the effects are too great to deny. And by that time there won't be much we can do about it (if we haven't reached that point yet)

People in colder climates perhaps . People who can make money from the hysteria surrounding it. It is not bad news in and of itself, but it has been whipped up into bad news. Also, why should we do anything to stop it. The idea that Earth could turn into Venus is moronic at best. It'll get warmer, it'll get cooler... it's done so while we're here, it'll continue to do so long after we've some mysterious nanovirus transmutes the human race into naturalist catgirls living in harmony with mother nature.

2 - When those who disagree are a very vocal minority of the scientific community, and they happen to be aligned with the position of the deepest pockets around, it is them who are primarily suspect. If all you care about is money, there is a lot more to go around in the side with less supporters, less evidence and more shouting.

And how many currently accepted 'facts' started out as being proposed by a vocal minority?

3 - The commercial agenda of "green" companies isn't being driven by scientists but by marketers. Expect a lot more of that as more and more companies realize that they can also make profits by tweaking their old products and rebranding them "green"

Which of course, triggers the real problem I talked about earlier. Science is being driven by marketing needs on both sides, and this marketing is encouraging a consumerist 'throwaway' culture that is doing the real harm. Or perhaps I'm just seeing corporate demons behind every advert. I have a tendency to assume that the vast majority of what I encounter day to day is just feeding the marketer's encouragement to consume and purchase crap I don't really need.

4 - I should also point out a trend that climate deniers are starting to switch from "climate isn't changing" to "Ok, it is changing, but humanity couldn't possibly affect that so it is all natural and not our fault, keep calm and carry on business as usual"

I never said humanity couldn't possibly cause the effect.... in fact, I doubt as a collective we'd ever be able to stop or truly mitigate it's effects. Not when so much of our infrastructure, so much of our way of life generates Co2, or any number of other pollutants. Never mind that, within the next century or so, we're going to stop burning fossil fuels whether we like it or not, so we'll have to ween ourselves off it eventually.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[nemonowan]

People in colder climates perhaps . People who can make money from the hysteria surrounding it.

That's like saying iodine vendors want more nuclear plants because they'll make a killing when they fail.

 It is not bad news in and of itself, but it has been whipped up into bad news.

Tell it to the micronesians. Islands have already disappeared

Also, why should we do anything to stop it. The idea that Earth could turn into Venus is moronic at best. It'll get warmer, it'll get cooler... it's done so while we're here

Let's see... Because it is the first time in our history that warming is being at the very least compounded by human action? And that unlike solar activity or other causes an increase in greenhouse gases is going to take a long time to disminish? And because it runs the risk of of becoming a natural-fueled vicious circle? And because Earth doesn't need to become anywhere near Venus for the effects to be catastrophic (whether ecologically or economically)?

And how many currently accepted 'facts' started out as being proposed by a vocal minority?

Climate change itself, to begin with. The difference is that nobody paid them to scream against a well supported consensus, but they gathered over decades the evidence that build the consensus. It's not because someone is a "maverick" running against the herd that they are right or even honest.

this marketing is encouraging a consumerist 'throwaway' culture that is doing the real harm.

I have seen a lot of pseudo-green products that are quite preposterous, but they tend to pose against said 'throwaway' culture. Then again I'm not in the USA so maybe things have devolved faster there.

Or perhaps I'm just seeing corporate demons behind every advert. I have a
tendency to assume that the vast majority of what I encounter day to
day is just feeding the marketer's encouragement to consume and purchase
crap I don't really need.

That actually very wise and I agree. But remember that even if Nike is trying to sell you Air Soles, gravity is not a lie.

I never said humanity couldn't possibly cause the effect.... in fact, I doubt as a collective we'd ever be able to stop or truly mitigate it's effects. Not when so much of our infrastructure, so much of our way of life generates Co2, or any number of other pollutants. Never mind that, within the next century or so, we're going to stop burning fossil fuels whether we like it or not, so we'll have to ween ourselves off it eventually.

Indeed, they are two crises that go hand in hand and it looks like they are going to hit us at the same time. And that makes it worse, because preparing for either will already take more resources than we are willing to spare (and the more we wait, the more it will take and the less will be available)

[Epsilon]

I think what he's saying here is that he tried to investigate the matter via the normal accepted process and was blocked at every turn by his peers. As Climategate has proven, it's -their- data that is in question.

Uh, no. Climategate proved nothing of the fact. If it did, perhaps you can point to where this proof is. Site your sources, the specific e-mails and so on with relevant quotes.
------------------
Epsilon

[Dartz]

People in colder climates perhaps . People who can make money from the hysteria surrounding it.

That's like saying iodine vendors want more nuclear plants because they'll make a killing when they fail.

 It is not bad news in and of itself, but it has been whipped up into bad news.

Tell it to the micronesians. Islands have already disappeared

Er. That island was 36 years old. It was a pile of silt dumped by a river. Islands are not permanent things. Everything in this world changes. I've seen beaches disappear overnight because of storms... reappear and so on. As it is, the history of human migration has been defined by climate change... people move where the weather goes. We can expect to stand bolt still while the world changes around us.

Also, why should we do anything to stop it. The idea that Earth could turn into Venus is moronic at best. It'll get warmer, it'll get cooler... it's done so while we're here

Let's see... Because it is the first time in our history that warming is being at the very least compounded by human action? And that unlike solar activity or other causes an increase in greenhouse gases is going to take a long time to disminish? And because it runs the risk of of becoming a natural-fueled vicious circle? And because Earth doesn't need to become anywhere near Venus for the effects to be catastrophic (whether ecologically or economically)?

And yet historically, a warmer world has shown much higher biodiversity. Higher sea levels displace low lying dwellers, but from a planetary perspective, they are not *bad* as such. Earth can get much hotter, and still be quite... I don't want to say stable. Never mind that on the long term, we are in an interglacial period, and climbing out of about a millenium or so's mini ice-age. You know the Thames used to freeze over? That stopped well before human intervention really got into the swing of things. The industrial revolution had only been going for a century or so.

So it is also possible that there is a natural warming trend?

And how many currently accepted 'facts' started out as being proposed by a vocal minority?

Climate change itself, to begin with. The difference is that nobody paid them to scream against a well supported consensus, but they gathered over decades the evidence that build the consensus. It's not because someone is a "maverick" running against the herd that they are right or even honest.

My point is, that just because the herd is going in one direction, does not make it correct either. Might be a herd of lemmings running off a cliff, casting themselves bodily out into space.

this marketing is encouraging a consumerist 'throwaway' culture that is doing the real harm.

I have seen a lot of pseudo-green products that are quite preposterous, but they tend to pose against said 'throwaway' culture. Then again I'm not in the USA so maybe things have devolved faster there.

Or perhaps I'm just seeing corporate demons behind every advert. I have a
tendency to assume that the vast majority of what I encounter day to
day is just feeding the marketer's encouragement to consume and purchase
crap I don't really need.

That actually very wise and I agree. But remember that even if Nike is trying to sell you Air Soles, gravity is not a lie.

But that they might do anything to mitigate the effects of gravity *is* a lie.

I never said humanity couldn't possibly cause the effect.... in fact, I doubt as a collective we'd ever be able to stop or truly mitigate it's effects. Not when so much of our infrastructure, so much of our way of life generates Co2, or any number of other pollutants. Never mind that, within the next century or so, we're going to stop burning fossil fuels whether we like it or not, so we'll have to ween ourselves off it eventually.

Indeed, they are two crises that go hand in hand and it looks like they are going to hit us at the same time. And that makes it worse, because preparing for either will already take more resources than we are willing to spare (and the more we wait, the more it will take and the less will be available)

This is the rub.
We (as humanity) can live in a warmer world. We're just that awesome. Provided we have energy.
We cannot live without energy. No energy == no agrochemicals, no irrigation, no communication, no immunisation. Millions starve. Millions die in wars.

This is why expending energy and resources to combat global warming seems so wrong to me. It feels like wasted energy, when our energy today may well be best spent finding alternate forms of energy, rather than finding ways to make current sources cleaner. This has the pleasant side effect of most alternate energies, and improved energy efficiency, also assisting with the whole global warming thing. If you believe it. But, technologies that solely mitigate climate change, may well just cost more energy, for what I see as dubious benefit.

As an example, cars are often run at a noticeable inefficiency to meet Co2 emissions standards. EU tests are skewed so that fuel consumption is calculated based solely on the gas coming out the ass, and not what was actually in the tank during the test. So they are super clean and efficient under a test cycle, but crap on the roads. Whereas, if you tune your car to run efficiently, regardless of what's coming out the tailpipe over the government prescribed test cycle, you might well find that your fuel consumption drops, and that emissions may well drop in real world conditions.

Efficiency is king.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[nemonowan]

 As it is, the history of human migration has been defined by climate change... people move where the weather goes. We can expect to stand bolt still while the world changes around us.

But there have never been so many humans in the world as now, and the world is pretty full. Any mass migration is going to spark serious conflicts. And the pentagon takes it seriously

And yet historically, a warmer world has shown much higher biodiversity....So it is also possible that there is a natural warming trend?

The problem is not only the heat. The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for instance, means more gets dissolved in the oceans, and that is already affecting organisms. The usual overrun of ecosystems by humans, that in and of itself is responsible for most modern extinctions, would only worsen in a mass migration. There is no way biodiversity would increase as a result.

Climate change itself, to begin with. The difference is that nobody paid them to scream against a well supported consensus, but they gathered over decades the evidence that build the consensus. It's not because someone is a "maverick" running against the herd that they are right or even honest.

My point is, that just because the herd is going in one direction, does not make it correct either. Might be a herd of lemmings running off a cliff, casting themselves bodily out into space.

As I said, decades of evidence have build a consensus that there is a fire coming towards the edge of the cliff, and that we better start figuring out how to climb down the cliff and build boats to cross the sea. All deniers are doing is delaying us until there will only be time to jump and pray you can swim.

That actually very wise and I agree. But remember that even if Nike is trying to sell you Air Soles, gravity is not a lie.

But that they might do anything to mitigate the effects of gravity *is* a lie.

But the fact remains that with proper design, engineering and regulations, you can build cities of skyscrapers that won't fall down because of gravity, even if there is an earthquake.

This is why expending energy and resources to combat global warming seems so wrong to me. It feels like wasted energy, when our energy today may well be best spent finding alternate forms of energy, rather than finding ways to make current sources cleaner. This has the pleasant side effect of most alternate energies, and improved energy efficiency, also assisting with the whole global warming thing. If you believe it.

Um Dartz... That is exactly what figthing climate change is about. And it is what the naysayers are trying to block at every turn, because it would cut into the bottom line of their established businesses.

[Dartz]

So we've effectively arrived at the exact same conclusion about what must be done. Despite disagreeing with each other about what the problem is.

Well, makes sense then.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Guest]

I think what he's saying here is that he tried to investigate the matter via the normal accepted process and was blocked at every turn by his peers. As Climategate has proven, it's -their- data that is in question.

Uh, no. Climategate proved nothing of the fact. If it did, perhaps you can point to where this proof is. Site your sources, the specific e-mails and so on with relevant quotes.
------------------
Epsilon

Frankly not sure if it's worth the time to go and find all the stuff - AGAIN - just to prove myself to someone who has decided to hold anything I say in contempt and not worth his time. Would you be convinced of anything?
Tell you what - you're not going to believe anything I say. How about Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller? Here's a guy who believes what you believe. That global warming is real. And HE is disgusted with the "science" involved.

Is this guy liberal enough to be credible to you?
As for specific sources. How about you go do the damn research yourself? Here's the ENTIRE archive of emails and data from Climategate. Not a single thing taken out of context. Nothing held back. It's the entire archive of material that broke the scandal in the first place. Go for it.
Here's another resource. Doubt you'll care much for that one though.

[Epsilon]

Frankly not sure if it's worth the time to go and find all the stuff - AGAIN - just to prove myself to someone who has decided to hold anything I say in contempt and not worth his time. Would you be convinced of anything?

I'll be convinced by actual peer reviewed data or other evidence of that nature.

Tell you what - you're not going to believe anything I
say. How about Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller? Here's a guy who
believes what you believe. That global warming is real. And HE is
disgusted with the "science" involved.

Logan, I'll break a truth to you here. We don't have a "side." Richard Muller is actually something of a skeptic when it comes to climate change and has been for years (since 2004 at least, when he published his first paper critical of Mann's work) and has been in a running rivalry with Mann for years. Now, he agrees that the world is warming, but disagrees with certain factors and measurement types, particularly the use of tree ring data.
And that's what this entire thing comes down to. Tree ring data, you see, has been used as a proxy measurement for temperatures for decades. Ever since we developed functional temperature gauges we've also been observing tree rings and up until about the last fifty years the tree rings have been consitent with recorded temperatures. There has been a divergence in the last fifty years or so, however. Mann and people in his camp claim that this is a result of increased polution effecting tree growth. Muller has claimed that this means that tree rings as proxy data should not be used.
But the hilarious thing is that the tree ring data is relatively inconsequential to the actual facts of the case. If tree ring proxy data is used then we're in the warmest period for the last 700 years. If it isn't used, we're in the warmest period for the last 1300 years. The feedback mechanism of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere is undeniable and has been know for almost a century now.

The argument here is whether Mann should have used the tree ring data for the last fifty years even though we know that data is wrong. We have mechanical measurement, and dozens of other confirming proxy methods, that confirm that the tree ring data has become unreliable in the last fifty years. The hilariously sad thing is that if we throw out the tree ring data entirely the case for global warming becomes better.

Is this guy liberal enough to be credible to you?

It has nothing to do with Liberal/conservative. There are legitimate criticism of global warming out there, Muller among them. I can point you to them if you want.

As for specific sources. How about you go do the damn research yourself? Here's the ENTIRE archive of emails and data from Climategate.
Not a single thing taken out of context. Nothing held back. It's the
entire archive of material that broke the scandal in the first place. Go
for it.

You're the one making a positive claim, you have to make your case. You'll have to do better than a youtube video. Perhaps a link to some peer reviewed papers by Muller disputing the facts would be better.
----------------
Epsilon

[ECSNorway]

You're the one making a positive claim, you have to make your case. You'll have to do better than a youtube video. Perhaps a link to some peer reviewed papers by Muller disputing the facts would be better.

This is part of the problem that people are running into trying to get research counter to the "consensus" published.
Their peers won't review it.
That is in fact what the original post in this thread was all about. Research contradicting the "the sky is falling" viewpoint is being actively suppressed.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Epsilon]

This is part of the problem that people are running into trying to get research counter to the "consensus" published.
Their peers won't review it.
That is in fact what the original post in this thread was all about. Research contradicting the "the sky is falling" viewpoint is being actively suppressed.

But, its not. I can point you to the paper, published six years ago that disputed Mann's claims and you won't find one e-mail talking about that paper needed to be surpressed in the e-mails.. If you were right then the work of Christiansen, Shaviv and Svensmark and others would have been deliberatly blocked. But they weren't. In fact, they are hardly even mentioned in the so called conspiracy e-mails.
The closests thing to a conspiracy is a few e-mails talking about boycotting the Journal of Climate Research after that journal published a paper which contained blatent misrepresentations of their data sets, and then only after the Journal of Climate Research refused to publish a paper by an editor of ther Journal of Climate Research which would have firmly rebutted the paper published and which had more than half the editorial board of the Journal of Climate Research resigning in response.
---------------
Epsilon