Professor says Global Warming a Scam

dwh

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at University of California resigned from the American Physical Society in protest after being a member for sixty-seven years.

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

"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."

Cariboocoot

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Yep. And the world is flat, too.

Let's nip the politics in the bud, please. :roll:

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Cariboocoot wrote: »

Yep. And the world is flat, too.

Let's nip the politics in the bud, please. :roll:

Not politics - skepticism. I'm a skeptic, and is this not the Skeptic's Corner?

So far, I've seen more data that global warming is false than I have seen data that it is true.

Cariboocoot

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

dwh wrote: »

So far, I've seen more data that global warming is false than I have seen data that it is true.

So far I've seen more data that global warming is true than I have seen data that it is false.

So there you go. :cool:

And remember: I think David Suzuki is an extremist and Al Gore a political opportunist. Since the data has clearly been skewed by both sides, I base my belief on my own knowledge of physics and how the Earth's climate functions coupled with personal observations over 50 years. The last 10 years have been the worst, btw. Something is definitely changing. Why? Our obsession with wasting as much energy as possible and spewing out as much pollution as we can, perhaps?

If nothing else, the belief in global warming may act as an impetus for conservation and development of alternate energy sources (which have benefits beyond the simple). Unfortunately it is also fueling a lot of pseudo-environmental clap-trap and "go green" scams, as well as misguided government policies.

Perhaps "political" isn't the right word. It's nearly "religious". :roll:

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Cariboocoot wrote: »

The last 10 years have been the worst, btw.

Well, yea...except...well, no.

"Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Perhaps "political" isn't the right word. It's nearly "religious". :roll:

That is precisely the right word - believing without proof.

I may be a global warming heretic...or infidel I suppose - but I demand proof. So far, I'm not convinced and I don't buy it.

Cariboocoot

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

dwh wrote: »

Well, yea...except...well, no.

"Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."

You're not reading my post properly. My own observations show the last ten years have been significantly warmer. Let me site you a few Cariboo examples:

1). Pine bark beetle devastation. Normally the population is kept in check by a couple of weeks of -30 cold. That has not happened in the past 10 years at all. This is not normal.

2). Absence of lake freeze. Usually you can drive a truck across it by the end of January. We have not had such a hard freeze in eight years.

3). Last Summer was the first ever in 24 years we've had to run a fan to stay cool at night.

4). Last winter's snowfall was nearly non-existent. They trucked snow in to Whistler for the Olympics.

So when the famous Canadian Northwest Passage is open twelve months of the year, then you'll agree?

If climate change is real, we will see it first here in the Great White North. And we already are seeing it.

Kamala

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Ten years does not a climate define.

Cariboocoot

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Kamala wrote: »

Ten years does not a climate define.

Now you're not reading it right, Big K! I said the last ten years have been the worst. I've got half a century (plus family historic data) that says it's happening.

But since I'm not a hot-shot PhD in the pay of Exxon-Mobil you shouldn't listen to me. :roll:

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

I have a feeling Lindzen (who is in the pay of M.I.T.) was referring to the "global" average temperature - not the local conditions where you are.

Perhaps your local conditions have been affected by building? It has been shown that as cities get larger they create local "hot spots" and can raise the average local temperature for many miles around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Cariboocoot

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

dwh wrote: »

I have a feeling Lindzen (who is in the pay of M.I.T.) was referring to the "global" average temperature - not the local conditions where you are.

Agree with him there; the world-wide temps haven't shifted enough to say "boo" about. But localized climate change is "step 1". Weather patterns shifting to one extreme after another is an immediate effect. Long-term, over-all warming won't even be really noticeable in our lifetimes.

Perhaps your local conditions have been affected by building? It has been shown that as cities get larger they create local "hot spots" and can raise the average local temperature for many miles around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Thanks for that, dwh! I haven't had a good laugh all day. Building in the Cariboo? Yeah; blame my new wood shed!

You do know there's only 32 million people in all of Canada, the second largest country in the world?

We do see urban climate change, though; Vancouver's filthy air gets blown up the valley and makes a real mess out of Hope.

nsaspook

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Our industrial pollution is probably the reason we haven’t already started the next ice-age cycle. If you look at the temp charts for the last few cycles we should be already headed down the slope. It's a cooling trend that coming no matter what we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Cariboocoot

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Yeah, I've heard that before.:roll:

Pull the other one; it's got bells on.

nsaspook

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Cariboocoot wrote: »

Yeah, I've heard that before.:roll:

Pull the other one; it's got bells on.

"What’s past is prologue"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/when-will-the-next-ice-age-begin.html

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

nsaspook wrote: »

"What’s past is prologue"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/when-will-the-next-ice-age-begin.html

I'm not wild about that article. First it tacitly assumes that global warming is a fact, and second it quotes Hansen, who started the global warming scare in the first place.

But yea, we've definitely been in an interglacial and have almost certainly already passed the boundary into the next ice age. It's all downhill from here.

vcallaway

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

I for one absolutely believe our climate changes. You only need to look at past evidence to see that.

What I don't believe is that we have any control over it.

bryanl

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

This discussion provides a rather typical example of why climate issue discussions are so often fruitless - it completely misses the point.

What Professor Lewis was concerned about was behavior of the APS - not conclusions about climate change.

Lewis listed several specific behaviors that concerned him. I do not see any of his points being put on the table here.

Here are some of the items I see in the Lewis letter

- misuse of association email data

- hastily written position papers using an inappropriate "poison word"

- lack of response to despicable behavior revealed in FOI information withheld then leaked

- association response to request of a large group of its members

- association management abrogation of organizations governance documents

- association conduct of affairs behind closed doors

I suggest that any discussion start with these points. From what I see, these points describe an approach and value system that goes beyond the APS and should be a significant concern to anyone interested in the integrity of climate research. What that tells me is that there is a need to come to some agreement about the practice of research and how it should be conducted and measured first. Only then can we start to look at the validity and meaning of research conclusions.

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

bryanl wrote: »

What Professor Lewis was concerned about was behavior of the APS - not conclusions about climate change.

I wouldn't say that exactly. What he resigned over was the behavior of the APS leadership. But he was concerned about the reasons behind that behavior; I.e, the corruption of scientists by the enormous amount of funding involved in keeping the scam alive.

He specifically mentions it:

"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."

russ

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

The whole thing from both sides of the argument is like the blind men describing the elephant.

No one knows or understands the science involved to be able to predict the future with anymore accuracy than simply saying the past will repeat itself.

500 years from now people will look back at our times and wonder how we managed to survive. Medicine is barely past the 'shake the rattle & chant' stage - climate study is yet to get to that stage.

One thing I am certain of - the garbage we dump into the environment is not positive!

icarus

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Once again, we go down this road on this forum at our peril.

Personally, I would request VERY MUCH, that we leave this conversation to other forums! I have seen too many otherwise good conversations/forums ruined by the passions that this conversation brings.

I am no meaning to imply that it is not a legitimate issue for conversation, quite the contrary, I just don't want to have this fall into that hole like so many others have done. I'm sure someone will chime in claiming that I am trying to "moderate". Be that as it may, as I say, I request that we leave this conversation to other forums,

Thank you,

Tony

At the risk of doing what I know I shouldn't,

It should be noted that the OP link is to an organization who is by it's own mission statement dedicated to challenging the policies to mitigate global warming/climate change,,,not asking whether or not the science is valid! So consider the source!



"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a registered, educational charity and think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[1][2]"

Ralph Day

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

But Tony, this area of the sandbox assumes that you're willing to get toys thrown at you, sand between your toes and in your eyes. If it's in the Skeptics, hype and scams corner then it's not in other more technical and interesting areas (and getting moderated out).

Ralph

Only cleaned snow 3 times last year. 15-20 years ago it was 20 times per year at least. ???

BB.

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

As long as everyone is polite...

-Bill

icarus

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

My worry however, is that there is a respect of losing respect for one another due to their position on a controversial issue. I have seen this topic bring out the worst in people on other forums, (including myself to some extent I must admit!) and the result of that is people's opinions on the topic at hand are therefore potentially tainted because of what people (including me!) say here.

I just prefer to keep this topic away from this forum, I will just try to ignore it as best I can. I realize that we are all adults, entitled to our opinons.

Tony

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

icarus wrote: »

My worry however, is that there is a respect of losing respect for one another due to their position on a controversial issue. I have seen this topic bring out the worst in people on other forums, (including myself to some extent I must admit!) and the result of that is people's opinions on the topic at hand are therefore potentially tainted because of what people (including me!) say here.

I just prefer to keep this topic away from this forum, I will just try to ignore it as best I can. I realize that we are all adults, entitled to our opinons.

Tony

Completely understandable.

My point of view is this...

Here, in this forum specifically, there is no problem discussing the derivations, the results, the after-effects if you will, of the belief in global warming - carbon footprints, carbon credits, tax breaks and rebates, the activities of politicians and governments as regards global warming, etc.*

But discussion of the underlying assumptions that those other topics are built upon? Oh no. It's a touchy subject. Best we stay away from that topic altogether.

Why? Because it *has* become a matter of religious belief. It's now a Sacred Cow. Discussing whether or not the underlying belief is true then becomes taboo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo

I don't like taboos. I think that if we're going to accept discussion of the results, then we should equally accept discussion of the underlying assumptions. If nothing else, I will keep pointing out that global warming is a theory that has not been proven. Heretic? Infidel? Devil's Advocate? It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

There is a lot of work going on in regards to that theory. Some trying to prove the theory, some trying to disprove it. Good - that's the scientific method. But so far the results *are* inconclusive.

No one here would dispute that there is a whole lot of hype, scamming and jumping on the bandwagon surrounding global warming and renewable energy. Personally, I believe that big business and government are guilty of the same behavior. And since that is where the majority of scientific funding comes from...

I also consider the source. Hansen proposed the theory. He is a reputable scientist. But he's more of an administrator. You don't get to be Director of Goddard without serious administrative skills, friends in high places, expert level politicking and a hefty dose of ego. Academic credentials don't get you that job.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Newton's Theory of Gravity. Perhaps there would be more rigorous skepticism if we referred to it properly as "Hansen's Theory of Global Warming".

And even for those who believe that the surface of the planet is in fact getting warmer - the reasons why that may be happening are widely disputed. Could be carbon, could be solar variation, could be bovine methane or electrical consumption or thousands of miles of asphalt and concrete or all of the above. Or none of the above. No one yet knows if the surface is actually heating up or not. And *if* it is, no one knows for sure why.

Uncertainty is the truth. Pattern recognition and the extrapolation of future trends from current patterns is a dubious art, especially when dealing with complexity and/or chaos. Even the best can rarely predict out to 3 years with any accuracy, and the further you go past 3 years, the more reality diverges from the predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_techniques

Of cousre, it's even more ridiculous when we aren't even sure what the current patterns are.


Green is good and no sane person would refute that. But green because it's the right thing to do is one thing - green because someone says the sky is falling is something else again.



Flame wars of course, are right out.



*Of course I don't object to that - these things do directly involve renewable energy and can have significant financial impact on the cost of an RE system. And NAWS sells RE, so these are entirely appropriate things to discuss here.

icarus

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

It is not a question of being Taboo in my mind, it is that this discussion inevitably comes into the politics which are quite apart from the science.

My request,, as always, fee free to discuss,,, I just don't wish it to be here. If it is,, then so be it. I will, as I said, try to stay out of it. I have too many other things to do, and to many other places I can exercise my opinon.

Tony

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

icarus wrote: »

it is that this discussion inevitably comes into the politics which are quite apart from the science.

I'm not trying to draw you in or keep you involved in a discussion that you don't wish to participate in.

Nevertheless, I must point out that the point that Lewis made in his resignation letter to the APS was that the politics and the science *should be* separate - but aren't.

When business funds politicians, and both business and politicians fund the science - the integrity of the science becomes questionable. Highly questionable.

He resigned from the ASP because he became convinced that the leadership of the APS was overly influenced by the money, which is controlled by the vested interests of business and politics, to the point where their scientific integrity was compromised.

He points out that this lack of integrity has become widespread amongst the scientific community, and he's not the first to say so either. And there *is* evidence of the truth of that allegation.

It thus becomes almost impossible to discuss the science without discussing the politics, since the science is so heavily influenced by the politics - which control the money that science depends on.

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Just saw this on the BBC web site about the IPCC making some changes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11541056


"The new guidance on uncertainties is aimed at preventing too much confidence being ascribed to conclusions where evidence is scarce.

In its recent review of the IPCC, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) - an umbrella group for the world's science academies - highlighted a case in the 2007 assessment where studies projecting rapidly declining crop yields in Africa were given more weight than they merited, in the absence of supporting evidence.

The revised guidance emphasises that in future, authors must assess both the quality of research available and uncertainties within that research."

(Which means they haven't *been* doing that.)


"Procedures for correcting errors should they arise were also approved - which means that the most serious error in the 2007 report, on the projected melting date for Himalayan glaciers, can be formally repaired.

"Some aspects of that error have been corrected and are now incorporated in the text," said Chris Field from the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University in California, who co-chairs the IPCC working group on climate impacts.

"But for other elements, we didn't really have the procedures in place until the error correction protocols were approved today.

"So the first order of business once I get back to my office is to initiate the procedure to do the definitive correction on the Himalayan glaciers.""


"The IPCC, which is ultimately controlled by its 194 member governments, is charged by the UN system with producing regular systematic evaluations of global climate change and its implications. "

solar_dave

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

It really makes no difference if the "experts" are wrong or right. No one will invest in alternatives until it is a capitalist requirement. (cost vs benefit) Off griders do it for a different reason but no one invests large sums of capital unless it makes financial sense.

Given the a payback in the order of 4 years a solar system makes sense, but in most cases it will take longer than that to recoup the investment. The average Joe can't see any farther into the future than the next paycheck usually, just look at all the fools that got caught in the mortgage scams/real estate boom.

Is it the right thing to do, in my case it was a no brainer financially, so yes. Dumping greenhouse gases into the environment has to be most likely a bad thing. But DWH has a point in that no real good science exists to overcome natures variability and chaos. Coot sees stuff happening in his neck of the woods, ice caps are shrinking but the root cause is still up for debate IMHO. Me, I likes keeping my money in my pocket and away from Obama, but in the long haul money is what will motivate people to change.

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

solar_dave wrote: »

ice caps are shrinking

One is - the other isn't:

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191


"The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."

niel

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

what this boils down to is what difference would it make to you dwh if you are right or wrong? i don't see the relevance as to what this really has to do with anything this forum addresses and i can only assume that you are just obsessing over an issue that is unprovable by most of us, including myself and you, one way or another until everybody will agree with you. you can still bring it up and you can still discuss it if you want to, but why? is it going to boost people buying pvs or conserving or is it everybody can just do whatever anybody wants to until the damages prove that wasn't a good idea to do if such damages occur? many have an opinion or some just don't know.
i have my opinion, but i can say i have sat back and just observed how these gw discussions have gone and they sound much like the arguments that went around during the 60s over pollution. pollution is much more provable, but there was much disinformation spewed out in favor of polluting even by scientists. also, the great cigarette arguments too as to whether they are bad for you or not. none of you, including me, are that certain of anything as none of us are experts to say and often when one wishes to push an issue to this extent as being fact then there is often other reasons or agendas for favoring it.
my question is why is it so important to you dwh to keep putting this here as this debate, even though allowed, will not come to a conclusion here. it will cause arguing and be disruptive sooner or later and is my primary reason for not participating in this redundant subject matter. what good will this discussion do?
i will not engage in conversation here on the matter and not because of my opinion on gw, but because it is pointless to continue no matter who is right or wrong and it is not that relevant in importance in this forum.
if any agree then let it die.

icarus

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Thank you Neil,,,

Tony

russ

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

As the mods have to read each post put up to insure there are no problems then they should have some say in what they have to slog through.

There are many other sites out there for anyone to argue and make points about the AGW stuff!