Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam
Source:
Red, White and Blue News
URL Source: http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670
Published: Oct 11, 2010
Author: RWBN
Post Date: 2010-10-11 14:56:03 by Badeye
Keywords: None
Views: 52607
Comments: 69
Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam Share As reported by the Gateway Pundit: Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter. From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don’t like this stuff getting out). The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus 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… Popularity: 100% [?] Short URL: redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Badeye (#0)
A good illustration of the dangers of allowing the government to co-opt the sciences and dominate the dissemination research money. I believe it's called "regulatory capture".
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
Agree.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Good point - we should only allow private corporations to fund research, who better to fund research of food safety than monsanto, or who better to fund global warming research than carbon producers, right?
Somehow this doesn't seem to carry as much weight...lol
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Agreed, given this guy has no standing among global warming science, there's as much weight attached to his statement as there is to your own statements on global warming.
I don't believe "we" have any business deciding or influencing who does or does not engage in research.
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
His point wasn't that climate science is fraudulent, it was that the scientific process based upon open inquiry has been abandoned. Something that Lewis is quite familiar with.
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
again, given his lack of involvement in climate science, it's hard to take his claims seriously. I keep pointing out that refuting global warming is simple: 1. simply demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising 2. demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising a consequence of human activity 3. demonstrate that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas So far, nobody has been able to refute any of those three.
(laughing) Suit yourself. 22 days...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
So far, nobody has been able to refute any of those three. Even Bob Scheifer isn't buying this pretzel logic, as he displayed with Axelrod over the weekend, GO65.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I understood it the first time. That's why my post addressed the fallacy of the argument.
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
So far, nobody has been able to refute any of those three. That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. I'll give you a dollar if you can prove you didn't pick your nose last night
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
When I was in school this was the tac the libs used for control: -----------------------------------------------------------
It's not impossible prove any of those aren't true. Take air samples around the globe and demonstrate CO2 isn't rising. The science is pretty clear and compelling.
Same here. Another DISCREDITED JUNK SCIENCE BOOK was 'Silent Spring' which is directly responsible for millions of dead children since it was published, via malaria.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone? Of course not, you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the Great Pumpkin.
Was the quality of life better in China and India 100 years ago? How about in the US?
No.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I am saying: one of the eco tactics you liberals tried to use to empower yourselves was the Population Bombs theories.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Congrats! You two morons just let someone with the IQ of buckeroo hijack you, away from a scientist's claim global warming is a hoax, into a debate about population control.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
I guess you skipped over this part when you read the letter: (sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
Of course it's a scam and Al Gore should be arrested and prosecuted for fraud. While we're at it, whoever in the Obama administration was responsible for steeling GM from the bond holders should be prosecuted for grand larceny.
Population, World 6,697,254,041 - 2008 268,601 square miles for Texas That would be 24933.8388204 people per square mile if everyone on earth lived in Texas. 27878400 square feet in a square mile. That would be 1148 sq ft per person. Which would be a plot of land 57'X20' if every person on earth lived in Texas.
I'll go to a physicist for answers about climate as soon as I go to a plumber to have my heart checked. Again, the point here is that Lewis has zero record of accomplishment in the field of climate science.
And of course there's the discredited science that smoking isn't harmful.
The physicist was not commenting on climate, but rather on the methods used by the "climate scientists" and you know it. Have you read the ClimateGate documents/Montford's book? I'll bet not. So sad for you that "global warming" is now KNOWN to be the fraud it is, and all your whining and tantrum foot-stomping won't revive it. The "facts" you attempt to argue have been shown to be bullshit. That's why no one takes the time to debate your discredited "facts". No need to. "Global warming" as an issue, is dead.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
The point here is that Lewis has an OUTSTANDING record of accomplishment in the field of SCIENCE, and knows bullshit science research from sound science research. He knows far more about it than you do, I'll wager. On this subject, he's the expert, you're the plumber. I'll go with him.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
As do thousands of other scientists who disagree with him, why should his opinions trump those of others, especially the ones with a deep background in climate science who've actually made the effort to submit their work for peer review?
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. Seriously, if this is what you honestly believe then are you sadly one of the illiterate boneheads that have have made this country 25 out of 30 in terms of science education in the developed world. The entire universe, planet, atmosphere, etc. is ALL physics. Climatologist = the weatherman who almost gets nothing right. You have demonstrated one important reason why America is on the rocks.
It's only KNOWN to be a fraud if you dismiss the temperature record and the record of rising CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem with the "global warming is a fraud" crowd is that they offer nothing to back up their claims, instead they simply wave their arms and dismiss what they don't like, sort of like the 9/11 truthers.
Who do you go to when you feel ill, a medical doctor or a physicist? If you want to attack me for seeking out the opinions of climate scientists in matters of climate, be my guest.
Maybe you should try crying and pouting along with your whining and tantrum foot-stomping. It's over.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
I'm more than happy to debate global warming, but if the debate starts with "it's a fraud because I say so" there's not much of a point of going forward. Is there something specific you want to dispute and if so, on what basis?
LOL. What an extraordinarily poor analogy. To answer your inappropriate question, if I am sick I will see a doctor. If there are are lot of people who are sick, I may consult a biologist. Back to "climate change"... The climate of the earth is always changing. We came out of a major ice age tens of thousands of years ago. Did SUVs cause the "warming"? No. We also came out of a minor ice age a few hundred years ago. Were SUVs the culprit? No. Physics has already explained the warming and cooling cycles the earth has experienced. This entire global warming scam is all about RED politicians trying to wrap themselves in GREEN in gain power for themselves. Socialism is out of style. Communism is out of style. Fascism is out of style. So, now they are all Greens. Regardless of what name they call themselves, they are all still evil tyrants. That's the bottom line.
See ya around, plumber.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
First off, my compliments to you for actually trying to engage in a debate. OK, now to answer your question. Yes, the climate has always changed, and will always change. What is different now is that the only plausible explanation for the accelerated warming over the last 30 years is rising CO2. We know that CO2 is rising, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know by analyzing CO2 that the bulk of it is coming from human activity. There are simply no other plausible explanations to explain what we've seen over the last 30 years. Now then, there is much disagreement as to the expected rate of warming and the impact. I've heard everything from minimal change to catastrophic change (e.g. the Venus effect), but again, the disputes over the impact/rate of change don't change the underlying argument - the earth is warming as a result of CO2 accumulation as a result of human activity. That people want to simply dismiss global warming because of politics is disturbing. Again, the only plausible explanation for the accelerated warming over the last 30 years is buildup of atmospheric CO2. There's no other explanation that's viable (feel free to offer one). And again, if that's your view then you need to offer up some alternative that explains accelerated warming over the last 30 years. If you want to simply wave your arms, dismiss the data, and claim it's all a fraud, then as I told wood chucker, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
Good day.
Here is one of many articles that I could post from different physicists which demonstrate that why your assertion is incorrect. The bottom line is that earth wobbles over long periods of time. The wobbles correspond to climate change. Right now we may be at the end of a long warming period and entering a cooling period. Wobbling Earth Triggers Climate Change Regular wobbles in the Earth's tilt were responsible for the global warming episodes that interspersed prehistoric ice ages, according to new evidence. The finding is the result of research led by Russell Drysdale of the University of Newcastle that has been able to accurately date the end of the penultimate ice age for the first time. The new dates, which appear in the today's edition of Science, show the end of the second last ice age occurring 141,000 years ago, thousands of years earlier than previously thought. Using information gathered from a trio of Italian stalagmites, the research has punched a hole in the prevailing theory that interglacial periods are related to changes in the intensity of the northern hemisphere summer. Drysdale and colleagues suggest that the Earth emerges from ice ages due in large part to changes in the tilt of the planet in relation to the sun, otherwise known as its obliquity. This affects the total amount of sunlight each hemisphere receives in its respective summer, rather than the peak intensity of the solar radiation during the northern summer. Sediment on the sea floor contains accurate a record of what happened to the Earth's climate prior to the last ice age. But up until now dating the sediment and the evident climatic changes has not been possible. Drysdale and colleagues overcome this difficulty by comparing the changes in the sea floor to similar material on the surface that can be accurately dated. John Hellstrom of the University of Melbourne used a very sensitive mass spectrometer to measure the amount of uranium and thorium contained in samples taken from the three stalagmites in the Italian Antro del Corchia cave to date the material.
Do you really believe that quote?
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Comments (41 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Andrew Jackson (#1)
#3. To: Badeye (#0)
It's not that unusual to see someone who is very bright and talented wander off into "crankhood" (especially in their twilight years). That happened to Linus Pauling and Kerry Mullis (Nobel laureates in chemistry).
More cranks with PhD's can be found here: http://www.catholicintl.com/galileowaswrong/index.html
Now, how do you distinguish cranks from non-cranks? The best way is to see what they've published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You will want to look at what they've actually published, what journals they've published in (are the journals leading journals, or low-impact "fringe" journals?), and perhaps most importantly, *how many times their work has been cited by other researchers*. That last item is known as the "impact factor".
Scientists like James Hansen, who have published large numbers of articles in leading scientific journals (like Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc), and whose research has been cited many times by other researchers, are the real deal.
Scientists like Harold Lewis who have published little or no climate research, who haven't been cited by other climate researchers, and yet make loud public pronouncements about the field in which they've performed no research, can safely be labeled as cranks.
And yes, I read his Lewis' letter -- it contained zero evidence in support of his claim that climate-science is fraudulent. It is nothing more than the ravings of a former scientist now in his declining years. Also note that Lewis' area of specialty is far outside of climate-science. Asking Lewis about climate science would be like consulting your Dentist about open-heart surgery.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#4. To: Andrew Jackson (#1)
A good illustration of the dangers of allowing the government to co-opt the sciences and dominate the dissemination research money. I believe it's called "regulatory capture".
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#5. To: go65 (#3)
#6. To: Badeye (#5)
Somehow this doesn't seem to carry as much weight...lol
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#7. To: go65 (#4)
Good point - we should only allow private corporations to fund research
#8. To: go65 (#3)
And yes, I read his Lewis' letter -- it contained zero evidence in support of his claim that climate-science is fraudulent. It is nothing more than the ravings of a former scientist now in his declining years. Also note that Lewis' area of specialty is far outside of climate-science. Asking Lewis about climate science would be like consulting your Dentist about open-heart surgery
#9. To: Andrew Jackson (#8)
His point wasn't that climate science is fraudulent, it was that the scientific process based upon open inquiry has been abandoned. Something that Lewis is quite familiar with.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#10. To: go65 (#6)
Agreed, given this guy has no standing among global warming science, there's as much weight attached to his statement as there is to your own statements on global warming.
#11. To: go65 (#9)
I keep pointing out that refuting global warming is simple: 1. simply demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising 2. demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising a consequence of human activity 3. demonstrate that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
#12. To: go65 (#9)
again, given his lack of involvement in climate science, it's hard to take his claims seriously.
#13. To: go65 (#9)
I keep pointing out that refuting global warming is simple: 1. simply demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising 2. demonstrate that CO2 isn't rising a consequence of human activity 3. demonstrate that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
#14. To: Badeye (#0)
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.
#15. To: Andrew Jackson (#13)
That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. I'll give you a dollar if you can prove you didn't pick your nose last night
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#16. To: WhiteSands (#14)
#17. To: WhiteSands (#14)
#18. To: buckeroo, WhiteSands (#17)
Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone?
#19. To: buckeroo (#17)
Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone?
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.
#20. To: buckeroo (#17)
Are you saying that population increases don't represent a danger to the quality of life for everyone?
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.
#21. To: WhiteSands, Ibluafartsky, buckeroo (#20)
(Edited)
#22. To: go65 (#3)
And yes, I read his Lewis' letter -- it contained zero evidence in support of his claim that climate-science is fraudulent.
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.
#23. To: Badeye (#0)
“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.
#24. To: buckeroo (#17)
#25. To: Wood_Chopper (#22)
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.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#26. To: Badeye (#16)
Same here. Another DISCREDITED JUNK SCIENCE BOOK was 'Silent Spring' which is directly responsible for millions of dead children since it was published, via malaria.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#27. To: go65 (#25)
(Edited)
I'll go to a physicist for answers about climate as soon as I go to a plumber to have my heart checked.
#28. To: go65 (#25)
(Edited)
Again, the point here is that Lewis has zero record of accomplishment in the field of climate science.
#29. To: Wood_Chopper (#28)
The point here is that Lewis has an OUTSTANDING record of accomplishment in the field of SCIENCE, and knows bullshit science research from sound science research.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#30. To: go65 (#25)
(Edited)
I'll go to a physicist for answers about climate as soon as I go to a plumber to have my heart checked.
“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.
#31. To: Wood_Chopper (#27)
So sad for you that "global warming" is now KNOWN to be the fraud it is, and all your whining and tantrum foot-stomping won't revive it. The "facts" you attempt to argue have been shown to be bullshit.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#32. To: jwpegler (#30)
The entire universe, planet, atmosphere, etc. is ALL physics.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#33. To: go65 (#31)
blah blah blah.
#34. To: Wood_Chopper (#33)
Maybe you should try crying and pouting along with your whining and tantrum foot-stomping.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#35. To: go65 (#32)
(Edited)
Who do you go to when you feel ill, a medical doctor or a physicist?
“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.
#36. To: go65 (#34)
#37. To: jwpegler (#35)
The climate of the earth is always changing. We came out of a major ice age 20,000 years ago. Did SUVs cause the "warming"? No. We also came out of a minor ice age a few hundred years ago. Were SUVs the culprit? No.
Physics has already explained the warming and cooling cycles the earth has experienced.
This entire global warming scam is all about RED politicians trying to wrap themselves in GREEN in gain power for themselves. Socialism is out of style. Communism is out of style. Fascism is out of style. So, now they are all Greens.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#38. To: Wood_Chopper (#36)
See ya around, plumber.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#39. To: go65 (#37)
(Edited)
What is different now is that the only plausible explanation for the accelerated warming over the last 30 years is rising CO2.
“Democracy is the highest form of tyranny. It keeps people from noticing that they have no power over anything.
#40. To: go65 (#3)
It's not that unusual to see someone who is very bright and talented wander off into "crankhood" (especially in their twilight years).
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]