Harold 'Hal' Lewis Emeritus Prof of Physics Resigns from American Physical Society due to global warming scam MUST MUST READ

22 replies [Last post]
Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008

IMO this is huge.
Who is Harold Lewis?

Quote:
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

He has resigned from the American Physical Society.

This is his resignation letter, please read it in full:

Quote:
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

That, IMVHO, is a stunning letter of resignation, and is SPOT ON.
Well done Sir, you at least, are standing up for truth and good science.
And THAT is what all so called "skeptics" want.

You can read more here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-...

and

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-p...

and it was found here:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/hal-lewis-resigns...

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

costata
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 26 weeks ago
Joined: 09/09/2010
Wow

That is mind blowing.

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Is the MSM Covering the Harold Lewis Resignation?

Anthony Watts describes this thus:

Quote:
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.

Given the status of the Professor, I tend to agree.
So what appears in the news on google just searching for "Harold Lewis"?

So far, not a lot.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3A...

Just the UK Telegraph so far, one of few MSM outlets to not effectively censor this whole subject.

So much for freedom and truth.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Odd comments

A good point:

Quote:
Also, these publishing climatologists aren’t a conspiracy. They are part of a $2 billion/year climate research industry. They are a self-selected group who know where their bread is buttered. Most of their jobs didn’t exist until the climate change boom.

And:

Quote:
Samoth: Hal Lewis was an APS Fellow, not just an ordinary member. The APS selects only 0.5% of its members per year for that honor.

Furthermore, he was trained by Oppenheimer, studied at UC Berkeley and the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, and chaired the elite JASON group of scientists who did semi-secret consulting for the US government.

Your notion that Lewis was just some nobody crank out of thousands of APS members is simply incorrect.

And on the MSM versus free blogosphere:

Quote:
I have just done a search on Google News for: “Hal Lewis APS resignation” without the quotes and the results so far speak for itself. Sad!
Google News search results
http://tinyurl.com/2uy4525
=================
The News and the Blogs become completely separate universes when stories of this kind appear.
This is a search in the blogs. It’s all over the place. The blogs seem to be the only thing remotely ressembling a democratic press these days.
http://tinyurl.com/22nr6e7

Quite. That is appalling.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Open Letter to the US Congress

Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 Open Letter to Congress by a team of prominent scientists.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.

SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

End Reprint of Open Letter. #

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
More comments
Quote:
John Coleman rightly points out that the only scientists who can really afford to dissent openly on these matters are the retired ones, or those outside the academic grant-manger system. In some very rare cases, like Lindzen’s, they manage to do it while still in the system if their credentials and tenure are solid enough, though they pay a big price. For younger ones, it means instant career suicide.
This is a very depressing state of affairs. An army of bureaucrats having, with one hand, a firm grip on the checkbook, while with the other hand they hold an entire generation of scientists and researchers firmly by the balls. It is no wonder that, in this kind of situation, those who are being so shamefully held attempt by all means to convince themselves of the truth of these dogmas, to ease the shame. For most of them, it would be impossible to function otherwise.

You could say that the Red Button in that infamous video represents not a fantasy, but a crude reminder of a well established reality: show the least sign of a doubt, and we will detonate your career.

What do we really have if we don't have unbiased science?
We get bad science, and we get inflicted by political/corporate demands.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

mutonic79
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 17/08/2010
Yes, we get bad science, and here is just one example
Quote:
What do we really have if we don't have unbiased science?
We get bad science, and we get inflicted by political/corporate demands.

Yes, we get bad science, and here is just one example:

http://co2insanity.com/2010/10/07/carb-diesel-emissions-overestimated-340/

Quote:
So, here’s how good the “science” behind California’s Global Warming Law AB32 probably is. The California Air Resources Board has beyond screwed-up their diesel regulations. Based upon “grossly miscalculated pollution levels” of only 340% over reality, which was used to create onerous regulations. Yes, you read right, 340%. Was this stupidity? Gross negligence? Gross incompetence? Outright fraud? All of the aforementioned? Read and decide for yourself.

and this:

Quote:
Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, offered no explanation when The Chronicle questioned her about the diesel emissions miscalculation.

And here the result of their "scientific calculations";

Quote:
The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the Air Board’s work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation – not the economic downturn.

One wonders where they find these people and whether they can sleep at night after so many lies and deceptions.
I know I couldn't.

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
PO Box Science

Hi mutonic79 Smiling
Wow, what a great contrast with Harold Lewis, who has REAL physics qualifications.
Harold 'Hal' resigns from the APS, while this is going on:

Quote:
Mary Nichols even failed to provide the knowledge to the board that the guy who came up with the numbers got his “Ph. D.” from a mail order college with a post office box.
...
Roberts and other board members were not told by Nichols that the scientist, Hien Tran, lied about earning a Ph.D. from UC Davis before they voted in favor of regulations based in part on his science. That vote took place in December 2008.

Nichols, who acknowledges she knew about the falsification prior to the vote

So this is "PO Box Science" Roll Eyes

This is the original article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/MNOF1FDMRV.D...

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation

I thought you'd like to see the speech referred to by Hal.
I've highlighted what I think is the most relevant part:

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Quote:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
On interest.co.nz

I posted the full resignation letter here:

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/90-seconds-9-am-bnz-weak-us-jobs-signal-q...

and got the usual tripe from "steven".

Interestingly, Kate posted this:

Quote:
by Kate | 11 Oct 10, 2:24pm New
I'm involved in university

I'm involved in university research here in NZ and can support the comments regards the AGW money-go-round. Even voicing the possibility that humans might NOT be responsible for changes in our climate would be career limiting. Funding is a highly competitive market and so much money these days is targeted toward "resolving" AGW and GG issues - not only in the physical sciences, but also in the social sciences.

Thanks Kate Smiling

steven and powerdownkiwi are continuing the usual tripe Roll Eyes

I could talk to these idiots if they had a brain, and didn't just come out with the usual rubbish.

I caught steven out when he claimed there was no mention of "science", then tries to claim it was taken out of context.

Not even man enough to accept he'd got it wrong.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
hickory said

I like this:

http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/688452.html

Quote:
Posted by: hickory
Oct 10, 02:30 PM

What really amazes me is the hoard of PhDs that are from entirely different disciplines than these scientists who jump out to declare such stupid theories of limited hydrocarbons. It's all about them getting grants and nothing about the rest of the world getting energy. Before I retired, I had several PhDs working for me who would grab a subject and try to mold it to their own individual benefit. Some I had to take behind a closed door and inform them they were employees and not prophets. I find the theories of Gold and Mendelev quite fascinating. The problem is they both run counter to the PC environment of today.

One solution could be to drill a bore hole down about 10 miles and throw some of these greenies down it to see what they turn into. I'm pissed at having these morons destroy anyone who is not aligned with their personal success. Their value to the rest of us seems to be somewhat limited due to their own conversion of good oxygen to carbon dioxide and drit. Where are Buffet and Gates when they could afford to look into such promising things as put forth by Gold and Mendelev? Oh, I forgot, Gates is involved in such wonderful endeavors as carbon black manufacturing in Africa. Look it up. You will have a very different opinion of this crook (he is a crook). Do you realize that we could be totally free from the very things that have caused wars for the last 75 years if we verified the subject Mr. Gold put forth?

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Jim Mora reads Hal's Resignation Letter on Radio NZ National

Professor Harold 'Hal' Lewis quoted on Radio New Zealand National

It was interesting to hear Jim Mora read, as the "quote of the day" part of the Professor Harold 'Hal' Lewis resignation letter out on Radio New Zealand National near the start of this:

4.06 The Panel
Bernard Hickey and Islay Macleod.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons
At 8:30:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/aft/2010/10/12/the_panel_pre-sho...

It appears that I am not the only one who thinks this event is significant.

What those people who like to throw the "denier" bomb around, fail to understand is this.
There are two issues.

The first is whether man-made CO2 is significantly affecting the global climate.
From my research, which is documented and significant, (see here http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421 for 965 posts on this, but also this area http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/forum/43 for much more), I am swayed to the view that man-made CO2 is not affecting the climate significantly. That there is too much uncertainty over many issues for any conclusion to be drawn. Certainly the science is not settled. Far from it.
I am not a "denier" of anything. I have a view, which I am willing to change if given good reliable trustworthy reasons to change it. I accept that it is quite likely that man-made CO2 does affect the global climate, but not significantly. I have seen no good reliable reasons to believe there is a significant effect, and no sound theory to explain why it should. On the contrary, there are interesting and reasonable theories to suggest other explanations for changes in climate, ideas which make a lot more sense than CO2.

The second, and IMO far more important issue, is whether science is being corrupted. And that is why I think Hal's resignation letter is so significant. It is a complaint that has been made before by many scientists.

It was warned about by Eisenhower thus:

Quote:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

which explains why Hal wrote this:

Quote:
a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago

Science can be corrupted in a number of ways, none of which involve a conspiracy:

1. Funding can be selective, biasing research towards a particular view. In this case, funding for climate change related research is available, but funding for research to investigate possible flaws in the current "consensus" is not available. It becomes a matter of career preservation to conform. Cherry picking research is as bad as cherry picking data.

Take this quote from a scientist in New Zealand as but one example:

Quote:
I'm involved in university research here in NZ and can support the comments regards the AGW money-go-round. Even voicing the possibility that humans might NOT be responsible for changes in our climate would be career limiting. Funding is a highly competitive market and so much money these days is targeted toward "resolving" AGW and GG issues - not only in the physical sciences, but also in the social sciences.

2. In order to minimise the publication of erroneous/misleading research/results, papers are expected to be peer reviewed. There is a hurdle placed to publishing peer reviewed papers for good reason. To be avoided at all cost is future scientific work to be based on falsehoods.
But, the peer review process acts as a filter, as it should, but the make-up of that filter has to be unbiased, truthful, and open.
When those who perform peer reviews in a particular field filter based on their own prejudices and aims, the peer review process becomes a filter to work critical of that "elite" group. It becomes difficult or impossible to publish critical papers, and allows those who support the current theory to make the false claim that the lack of critical peer reviewed papers "proves" that the theory is correct, and to reject any paper exposing flaws in the current theory.

Thirdly, the "elite" group can become gatekeepers of the raw data and methods used by them, thus making it all but impossible for other scientists to look for flaws. This is what science is supposed to be about, and without that checking system, how can we have any faith in it? Again, this is a complaint heard many times from many scientists in the field of climate research.

Fourthly is the idea that only scientists who work directly within the "elite" group have the knowledge to understand the subject, and that all others should be ignored. Science should be open to all, for once any scientists put themselves above everyone else and refuse to be subjected to examination, we can no longer have faith in them. Many a good piece of science has come from unexpected places, and many an error has been revealed in the field of AGW by those outside the "elite" group.

These corrupting influences on science have been cited by a number of scientists.
Since the Climategate scandal, in which the inner workings of the "elite" group of climate scientists was revealed, there have been calls for more transparency.
If there is nothing to hide, if the data is sound, if the adjustments to the data were sound, if the theory is sound, there is nothing to lose by increasing transparency.
If however the data is badly managed, if it has been cherry-picked, if it has been adjusted to suit the theory, and if the theory itself is flawed, then transparency will expose those failings, as it should.

Do I deny the possibility of AGW? No.

Do you deny the possibility that science has been corrupted?

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Kate has since written this
Quote:
As a social scientist - my area of special interest is the relationship between policy/politics and science/"experts" (I use " " where experts are concerned becuase indeed our society has many experts - steve netwriter and pdk being examples, because of the wide extent of their own personal research and reading and thinking, but lay expertise is highly discriminated against in our political/governmental system).

I love science, I find it fascinating and I admire people with intellect in the physical and natural sciences greatly. But NZ environmental management has turned into a racket. Scientists have become largely "experts-for-hire", not only here but the world over, and many of the "facts" produced for resource consent hearings and the like are mistrusted by the general public (and often for very good reason). Scientific knowledge becomes "owned" by the commissioner of such studies - and such knowledge is often selectively used in resource consent hearings and the like.

I highly recommend the following article which encapsulates the very serious nature of the problem of a loss of trust in science by society;

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v3/n8/full/embor093.html

For me - I'm an AGW agnositic - I don't need proof - I can see and know from simple observation that we're destroying our resources, overfishing our seas, over-populating our cities etc etc. I am bitter about the amount of money, for example, that local government has spent on trying to "plan" for sea level rise - where the "forecasts" coming out of the IPCC change wildly from year to year... not to mention its just plain old common sense from an earthquake point of view that its dumb to build on sand/wetlands. So, we hardly needed all that money spent on these "expert" studies in the first place.... especially when there are so many other more important things councils could do with our money (such as adequate sewerage treatment). And besides, the more severe weather events we're experiencing mean floods and landslides are going to get alot more houses in the future than the sea is likely to do.

I could go on, but you'll get my drift. Time to stop the money-go-round on this narrow issue. We have much bigger fish to fry than how much carbon we might sequester here in little 'ol NZ.

and

Quote:
Yes, but climate "science" isn't anywhere near as black and white as Russian Roulette - yet cap and trade taxation policies point the gun in costs directly at the bottom end consumers.... much like GST. Don't be fooled... climate change policies are tax policies, not humanitarian/environmental ones.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Gibber, on me

Gibber, on me:

Beer

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Gibber
Gibber's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 32 weeks ago
Joined: 20/03/2009
Thanks. Enjoyed it.

Smiling

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Jasper Kirkby CERN

I am reminded of this:

Clouded research
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

Quote:
Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.

Quote:
Dr. Kirkby, in contrast, now 10 years older and wiser, has changed. In the past, he would unguardedly say: "There is certainly a greenhouse effect. The question is whether it is responsible for all the 0.6C warming in the past century, or two-thirds or a fifth -- or what?" Now, to head off attacks, and controversies that might once again derail the CLOUD product, he hides his hopes and downplays the significance of what CLOUD may find: "If there really is an effect, then it would simply be part of the climate-change cocktail," a perhaps less naive, more politic Dr. Kirkby now states.

If anyone reading this has not seen this, I cannot recommend it highly enough:

Lecture on Cosmic rays and climate by Physicist Jasper Kirkby of CERN
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2525

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Physicists Stick to Warming Claim Post-ClimateGate

Some background to this story.
This is a VERY good reference article.

Physicists Stick to Warming Claim Post-ClimateGate
December 8, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5933353-504383.html

Quote:
Pressure on this venerable society of physicists, which was founded in 1899 at Columbia University, is coming from members who are squarely in the scientific mainstream and are alarmed at the state of climate science revealed in the leaked e-mail messages and program files from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. (See CBS News' prior coverage.)

Those files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and discussed how to conceal apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law. Internal investigations are now underway at East Anglia, Penn State, and the British government's weather forecasting unit.

One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group.

One reply:

Quote:
I agree completely with Robert Austin, "I view it" data manipulation to show CO2-induced global warming "as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day. We as taxpayers pay for that work -- we are owed examination of the analysis."

Thank you, Robert, for addressing the issue so concisely!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
APS Responds

The APS has responded to the resignation letter, and Hal has deconstructed the response Smiling

Highly recommended reading:

APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-ap...

I will just quote this important point from the end:

Quote:
Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum:

I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors. It relates to: “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming. Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average temperature by only about 1 deg. C. — if there were no other climate effects involved. However, these other effects, generally called “feedbacks,” can amplify or attenuate the primary radiation altering effect of additional CO2. The most prominent feedback is the “cloud-water vapor feedback,” which is very difficult to calculate or determine empirically. The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues

I thought they'd shot him. They should have.

Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-wil...

Quote:
rogue Wiki editor (and Real Climate co-founder) William Connolley is still removing anything he doesn’t like when it comes to climate science. This time it’s wholesale removal of any reference to the American Physical Society resignation letter of physicist Hal Lewis, who resigned over the APS global warming position:

You KNOW there's something VERY wrong when CENSORSHIP has to be used.

Just check the edit history.

Unbelievable in this day and age.

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
William Connolley banned from Wikipedia

William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic...

But only for 6 months!
Should be much longer, like 60 years Smiling

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve B
Steve B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 weeks ago
Joined: 19/02/2010
Thats amazing, truly amazing.

Thats amazing, truly amazing. Money can turn good people bad, it's sad when they have to rely on lying to provide them with an income.

Steve the Firefighter

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
An Open Letter to the Council of the APS from 2009

The full letter is posted here:

An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society from 2009
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3682

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Steve Netwriter
Steve Netwriter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2008
steven on interest.co.nz agrees the science is not settled

At least that's what I think this says:

Quote:
by steven | 12 Oct 10, 9:57pm New

Of course science is never really totally settled, what science can do in many areas and AGW is one of them is settle it to the degree that enough is known to consider the risks and impacts of what we are doing and what action should be taken to stop it...that then actually moves beyond science and into areas we decide as ppl.

So steven disagrees when claims are made that "the science is settled". How interesting.

Yet he's happy to call people like me "deniers" Thinking Big Smirf

Your friendly host. You can email me here: climategate.scandal at gmail.com

I recommend buying gold and silver from BullionVault

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.