Monday, September 19, 2011

Global Warming...integrity or money?

I found THIS at CUBE's blog......please read it and send it around to email friends:


Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Anthony Watts describes it thus:
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. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

45 comments:

beamish said...

I still say the cheapest way to regulate the Earth's average temperature is to place and remove thermometers in the Artic as needed.

-FJ said...

"Careful Khan, you're thinking in two dimensions, again..."

-Kirk

Mark said...

Posted on Facebook.

Bob said...

I believe Lewis was last year. This year, it is a Nobel Laureate that resigns. The older guys, the ones with integrity, are not on the government research gravy train, and are honest about the absence of science in so-called climate change.

Here is the WUWT link.

Silverfiddle said...

The scheme is unraveling. The British papers are full of stuff like this as well.

Picture Al Gore in a black hat and robe, Krugman like monkey around him, Dorothy throws a pail of water on him, he cries... "I'm melting! I'm melting! Oh what a world... what a world!"

Joe said...

The average "climatologist" avoids one important factor: the incredible volume of the atmosphere.

Then they exercise incredible arrogance in believing that puny little mankind can overcome the effects of trees, grasses and other vegitation which benefit from additional CO2 and release more O2 into the air.

The result is that the planet takes very good care of itself, on average, and man-made climate change is a total fake.

The exception is a city like Los Angeles, where temperature inversions invite "smog," but even that is a localized event and the smog disipates when it leaves the city.

Climate DOES change. It always has. It even changed before mankind was here...sometimes even more than we can imagine.

beamish said...

"Careful Khan, you're thinking in two dimensions, again..." -Kirk

Having realized myself long ago to be significantly unimpressed with the intellect of people with college degrees (most of which I'd wager earned them via simplified multiple choice and true / false quizzes), I believe the age of "professional" people actually knowing what they're talking about to be drawing to an end.

Thus, we live in a world where there is a sizeable contingent of people who actually believe Congress can legislate the weather.

Ducky's here said...

I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.

--------------------

Interesting comparison. Beyond the hyperbole it goes to the religious frenzy opponents possess.

Well I'm sure there is know conventional energy money in research which may be fueling some of these disputes.

Z said...

beamish.......good idea :-)
and yes, it does seem that some people think they can legislate the weather...

FJ...?

Mark, GOOD, it needs to be seen!

Bob...sad, isn't it.

SF: Ya, Gore is melting, but he's melting with what some people adds up to about $100 million made off global warming.
I liked when he purchased that house right on the California coastline, hanging practically IN the water, after he's talked about sea levels rising and wiping out coastal cities:-)

Joe, you're so right. Mr. Z was somewhat an expert on the climate scam and I wish he could hear what's finally going on now.
By the way, MUCH less smog here in L.A. now; which I do credit the wiser experts for. I haven't seen a smoggy day in years, though I know I don't live where it was most smoggy.

Ducky, thanks for catching that and commenting; you're getting predictable and it's almost satisfying for me.
But, does Lewis sound religious or frenzied to you? :)

Joe Conservative said...

The atmosphere around Earth expands and "contracts" in direct correlation to twelvish-year solar activity cycles. The height of the Mesosphere varies significantly over this cycle. During periods of high sunspot activity when there is a "relatively" fast solar wind blowing, the "height" of the Mesosphere is relatively "close" to Earth and it appears to "channel excess energy" off into space via plasmoids during a process currently being investigated known as "magnetic reconnection". The effect is most recognized in the form of the aurora borealis (northern lights), and IMO, it's similar to a capacitor discharging.

I know, THAT explanantion probably didn't help much. Sorry :(

Joe Conservative said...

This process is significant, IMO, because most climate models only account for thermal "radiation", and none allow for "conduction."

Joe Conservative said...

In other words, the so-called vacuum of space is not a vacuum at all. There is only a point at which the strength of the sun's emissions are balanced against other sources in the galaxy/cosmos. The "heliopause" being but one. We currently live inside a local interstitial bubble inside our galaxy caused by an ancient star going "nova".

And now CERN experiments have verified the likelihood that these other sources (galactic winds) actaully seed high altitude cloud formations in the Earth's atmosphere (not carbon based anthropogenic pollutants like CO2).

Joe Conservative said...

So when the solar cycle goes "quiescent" (once every 12 years or so), more of these cosmic galactic rays reach Earth, seeding high altitude clouds, which reflect the sun's rays and cool the planet.

This is a natural process. There's nothing anthropogenic about it, except for the "global dimming" effects of high flying aircraft which tend to cool the Earth, NOT heat it up.

Joe Conservative said...

Before 9/11 the effects of "global dimming" were unmeasured and thought to be insignificant. When planes didn't fly for a few days, scientists finally woke up to just how "significant" global dimming was.

Joe Conservative said...

One day, as the Earth's magnetic field diminishes, the planet will lose its' atmosphere to plasmoids, much as Mars has.

But THAT day is pretty far away, but how FAST that will happen, is currently under investigation.

My big question is... when the Earth's magnetic field changes direction as it does every 10,000 years or so.... what will the temperatures be on Earth?

Joe Conservative said...

The South Atlantic Anomaly is growing. The magnetic poles are due to flip soon.

Joe Conservative said...

from the Wiki article on the SAA - This suggests the Van Allen belt confines antiparticles produced by the interaction of the Earth's upper atmosphere with cosmic rays....

The self-same particles that the CERN experiments have hinted at that allow high altitude clouds to form and cool the planet. So is current "heating" we are experiencing a result of a weakening magnetic field? Possibly.

Joe Conservative said...

There ARE competing scientific theories that attempt to understand the global climate. Nobody has the "right" to claim that the "science is settled" until it actually IS settled. And it's NOT. In climate science, there is still a lot of "black swan" potential.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

He wasn't the only one to resign, as I wrote here.

BZ

-FJ said...

I believe the age of "professional" people actually knowing what they're talking about to be drawing to an end.

Kirk winks to Khan.

Pris said...

"Beyond the hyperbole it goes to the religious frenzy opponents possess."

Actually Ducky, for those who believe this, it goes to human hubris, in believing they have the power to affect climate, or weather, if you will.
However there are those who know it's a hoax, and those who go along whether they believe it or not.

Further, it goes to scheming and using this global hoax as a vehicle to lower our standard of living, and importantly, to have control over us in ways which have no end to their detriment for free people, such as "the green agenda".

I cite an announcement from environmentalists in which they stated, "people will have to live a more primitive lifestyle".

This entire scam is about international power and money, which usually go hand in hand, and we are the fall guys if we buy into it.

Those in positions of leadership, stand to gain a seat on this international runaway train of deceit if they succeed in selling this snake oil, and if they dissent, they're left behind.

However those who are left behind, at least retain their honor and integrity, and hopefully, their ability to debunk this once and for all.

It is a most insidious, evil, destructive scheme which is full of lies, manipulation, and threats, with a goal of global
totalitarianism, IMO.

FairWitness said...

The Alinskyites have been successful, thus far. I remain hopeful truth will prevail in the end. The enormous waste that has occurred is hard to fathom. Climate change is, indeed, the biggest rip off the world has ever seen. That gas bag, Al Gore, knows it, too. What a shame Emeritus Professor Harold Lewis had to suffer so. He did the honorable thing.

beamish said...

FJ,

Ragle Gumm lives ;)

-FJ said...

Under a Blue Sky on Mars, I hope...

-FJ said...

Oh wait, that wasn't the Moon... ;)

Z said...

and,DARNED if the NEW YORK TIMES isn't mentioning THIS ABOUT A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER QUITTING BECAUSE OF THE WARMING SCAM

odd, huh? :-)

Z said...

Tell you what; the saying used to be "If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't read"

Now, it's

"If the Left looks wrong, don't tell the throng"

Bd said...

Oh good! Global warming is not real? Whew! Wow, you can be such lemmings here. This is a freaking lie.

Tell ya what, if you don't believe, white a letter to your descendants, put it in a safe place like the family bible or a safe. I'm betting generations from now you will look like the family oaf!

Psst...even Bush finally admitted to Climate Change and man's involvement.

You guys are so easily swayed by hateful, silly rhetoric.

beamish said...

Nah, FJ. Ragle Gumm thinks he's playing World of Warcraft when really he's "fixing Medicare." ;)

beamish said...

"Where's the little green man now, bitches?!"

beamish said...

Tell ya what, if you don't believe, white a letter to your descendants, put it in a safe place like the family bible or a safe. I'm betting generations from now you will look like the family oaf!

"A mis descendientes,

Espero que lo están haciendo bien. ¿Podría usted hacerme un favor y encontrar a los descendientes de "Bd" y patada en los dientes? Gracias. En el nombre de Alá y su Profeta Muhammad, bendiciones para ti.

Con el amor, Beamish."

Pris said...

"Psst...even Bush finally admitted to Climate Change and man's involvement.

You guys are so easily swayed by hateful, silly rhetoric."

BD, Bush succumbed to political correctness. Why would I accept his opinion, when highly respected scientists dissent?

When I was young, an ice age was predicted. Tell me, who is right? Do you know? Funny isn't it, that prediction didn't demand we change our way of life.

Cheney said it best, "yes climate change is true. It's hot in the summer, and cold in the winter". Wow, how perceptive is that!

Well looky here Bd, your hateful silly rhetoric doesn't sway me a bit.

Scotty said...

Beamish, BD tiene suficientes problemas con langage enlish!

Z said...

Don't look now, Scotty, dear, but you have problemas with whatever language THAT is, too :-)

Il a beaucoups de problemes avec son anglais.

BD tiene muchos problemos con son English..

BD hat viele problemen mit seinem English.

I wasn't perfect in any of those, but close :-)

Ducky's here said...

BD, Bush succumbed to political correctness. Why would I accept his opinion, when highly respected scientists dissent?

-----------

The research is ongoing so you probably don't completely accept or reject the issues.

However, many scientists accept the premise but somehow in the right wing bizarro world they don't count.

Bd said...

...psst...ducky...it's becasue they are lambs being led to their slaughter by their corporate overlords and would rather listen to Fox/Rush as gospel than actually think for themselves.

beamish said...

Beamish, BD tiene suficientes problemas con langage enlish!

jajajajajajajaja!

Lástima que Bd probablemente no entiende que el futuro es islámica, de habla española, y no engaño del calentamiento global en cualquier lugar.

;)

net observer said...

Z et al,

I am curious. If you go to wikipedia and look up "global warming controversy", you will quickly find this statement:

"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[3][4] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions"

How do you reconcile your views on climate change with that?

For the record, I am not a scientist. Subsequently, I don't feel the least bit comfortable going against the grain of the scientific community's consensus opinion. So I can't help but wonder why so many non-scientist conservatives feel otherwise.

It's like, do you question the science community on any other major consensus opinions? Or just this one? Or what exactly?

I am not being confrontational. I am not declaring anybody to be right or wrong. I just honestly want to know what you and others are thinking here.

Fwiw, I am assuming that you don't view wikipedia as simply another liberal media phenomenon. And I am also assuming that you don't view the average scientist as a money-grubbing shyster hoodwinking the rest of the world.

Z said...

net, did you read the article about Lewis? He's a very well acclaimed, well educated man working in this field for YEARS and he disagrees with that paragraph of yours from Wikipedia. And wait till you see my Tuesday article; even more damning.

NO CONSERVATIVE doesn't want clean air and water (and i'm almost rabid about knocking down trees; DO NOT do it in front of ME)....but we believe that a LOT of this climate change (used to be called 'warming', remember, till it cooled and they changed the moniker!?) is trumped up by the Gore hype and there are those who estimate his share of the profits of this scam at about $100 million.
The whole point of this piece is MONEY...is it true or are grants being financed, are people getting science jobs in the perpetuation of this endeavor to keep the Gore types rich in spite of those saying this is ridiculous?

I guess you know Wikipedia is written by people like you and me. As far as I know, anyone can do a Wikipedia entry and can edit others', etc. But, I use it quite often.

As for global climate change, there are MANY scientists who can prove that the changes are cyclical, caused by the sun; conditions that man cannot change. It's the hard nosed "It's ALL HUMAN CAUSED" that most of us resent because that cannot be proven.

So, because many believe this is a scam, we naturally veer toward people like Lewis, Giaever (tomorrow's blog post), Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Monkton (who worked WITH Gore in the early days and now completely discredits and calls this situation a 'hoax')By the way, I'll tell you now that Giaever was a big Obama supporter.(see tomorrow's post)

"...though a few organisations hold non-committal positions"

Well, we know right off the bat THAT's not true now, don't we....the names above are highly acclaimed and vehemently protest the thinking that humans are the biggest contribution to disastrous climate changes. voila

net observer said...

Z, I am aware that there are numerous voices with topnotch science credentials who counter the conventional wisdon about climate change. But aren't those people very much in the minority? And if they are, what do you think the majority is is sayng what they're saying?

Z said...

leaders in the field are going south on the idea, net.

and the answer is money. hence my title "Integrity or Money?" xx

Look, i happen to have read enough (thru Mr Z mostly) to disagree with the imminent drowning of NY City, but I'm not against cleaning things up, guarding our air, etc...
it's when we're forced to follow regulations which are drying our economy up for fear we're going to lose Alabama to hurricanes next year which makes me skeptical. and mad.

Yes, the weather's been worse than usual lately; then, suddenly, a weatherman will add "since 1929" Oh, this happened in 1929, too? Gee, maybe it's cyclical and we shouldn't have closed down those plants, after all?

-FJ said...

No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[3][4] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions"

That one is too easy. Entryism by "progressive" groups like the International Marxist Tendency (IMT). Even Ted Turner "bought" the U.N.'s IPCC with a multi-billion dollar donation.

The Tendency (IMT) developed an original concept of entrism which was described as being a different concept than the classic entryism and also an opposing vision to Michel Pablo's "deep entrism" or "entrism sui generis". Marxists should work "inside, outside and around the mass organisations" for "workers begin to move through their own traditional mass organisations" and therefore "outside the workers' movement, there's nothing". This stance resulted in the Grantist groups on a world scale leaving the Fourth International after 1965, since the IMT considered other Fourth Internationalists as having degenerated into sects under the influence of non-Marxist ideas such as guerrillaism, left-wing nationalism, studentism, or third-worldism.

Like the tenure committees in the American University system have been taken over by the "entryism" of the SDS's "Port Huron Statement" supporters.

A new left must transform modern complexity into issues that can be understood and felt close-up by every human being. It must give form to the feelings of helplessness and indifference, so that people may see the political, social and economic sources of their private troubles and organize to change society. In a time of supposed prosperity, moral complacency and political manipulation, a new left cannot rely on only aching stomachs to be the engine force of social reform. The case for change, for alternatives that will involve uncomfortable personal efforts, must be argued as never before. The university is a relevant place for all of these activities.

But we need not indulge in allusions: the university system cannot complete a movement of ordinary people making demands for a better life. From its schools and colleges across the nation, a militant left might awaken its allies, and by beginning the process towards peace, civil rights, and labor struggles, reinsert theory and idealism where too often reign confusion and political barter. The power of students and faculty united is not only potential; it has shown its actuality in the South, and in the reform movements of the North.

The bridge to political power, though, will be built through genuine cooperation, locally, nationally, and internationally, between a new left of young people, and an awakening community of allies. In each community we must look within the university and act with confidence that we can be powerful, but we must look outwards to the less exotic but more lasting struggles for justice.

To turn these possibilities into realities will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty. They must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy. They must make fraternal and functional contact with allies in labor, civil rights, and other liberal forces outside the campus. They must import major public issues into the curriculum -- research and teaching on problems of war and peace is an outstanding example. They must make debate and controversy, not dull pedantic cant, the common style for educational life. They must consciously build a base for their assault upon the loci of power.

As students, for a democratic society, we are committed to stimulating this kind of social movement, this kind of vision and program is campus and community across the country.

-FJ said...

Entyism into organizations like the APS by leftists end up FORCING all the ethical and "impartial" people to resign. Their positions are then taken over by ACTIVISTS.

Barack Obama used to "administer a whole slew of Chicago Area Private Foundations that had been taken over by the Left, and used their "trust funds" to support more Left wing activism.

Speedy G said...

The Left BEGAN their entryism in the American University System in the early 60's. Most of those early undergrads, became professors who weren't shy about indoctrinating students during a period in which the university system expanded exponentially and spread their "progressive" ideas far and wide.

That their remains only a "small minority" of relatively impartial scientiific observers is NOT a "mystery". Fifty years of progressive activism coupled with entryism has taken its' toll in influencing what Americans currently call their "common sense."

Speedy G said...

Trying to prevent liberals from continuing to "indoctrinate" America's most promising youth is a pet project of David Horowitz's Freedom Center and their Students for Academic Freedom, as well as some others.