Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

Originally Posted by commiecat

Post whatever he's saying that cannot be refuted. I'm at work and can't watch the video. Transcription at least.

I'll still side with the hundreds of professionals who specialize in tracking our climate against a known crack pot.

You people who buy into this whole cap and trade scheme are being scammed. I hope you enjoy your servitude.

Originally Posted by Miner123

You people who buy into this whole cap and trade scheme are being scammed. I hope you enjoy your servitude.

Right to the point. My fear is that we're already there.

Originally Posted by Miner123

You people who buy into this whole cap and trade scheme are being scammed. I hope you enjoy your servitude.

So point out the scam. You've been asked to provide the facts but so far you haven't.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

So point out the scam. You've been asked to provide the facts but so far you haven't.

There's too many to name just one. Watch the video. Are you afraid you might learn something?

Originally Posted by Miner123

There's too many to name just one. Watch the video. Are you afraid you might learn something?

Riiiiight. Look, if you know how to turn dialog into text I'd appreciate it for the scope of this discussion because as I said before, I cannot watch the video at work and clearly whatever he said will change the world.

I know that he listed so many irrefutable facts that you cannot choose just one, so please give us like 2 or 3 "facts". Pick them chronologically in his video, or even alphabetically if you'd like, to make it easier to choose.

Otherwise it seems Palin-esque:
"Which newspapers do you read?"
"Ohhh, gosh, gee, well there's so many that I can't just pick a few!"

Originally Posted by Miner123

There's too many to name just one. Watch the video. Are you afraid you might learn something?

I didn't ask you to name just one. Name as many as you like.

Why would you think I'm afraid to learn something? I'm asking you to provide the facts that you have and that you've used to come to the conclusion this is all a big scam.

Here is a resignation letter from Harold Lewis to the American Physical Society, after being a member for 67 years, over climate change. It raises some good questions imo. (originally printed in the telegraph UK and can be found here: US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' – Telegraph Blogs)

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)

Heres an article on the NOAA's satellites temp readings being faulty. The NOAA provides much of the temp data to the computer models that 'show' the warming, which have been shown to be 10-15 degrees off, they even showed that the temp on the surface of the great lakes was 617 deg. That would probably raise averages a bit. Climate Change Dispatch - US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

Here is a resignation letter from Harold Lewis to the American Physical Society, after being a member for 67 years, over climate change. It raises some good questions imo.

Yes, very good questions indeed.
So would you be able to also provide a scientist of comparable statute who has expressed the opposing view with similar eloquence? That may help in establishing that you're not just picking a datapoint three standard deviations from the norm (not that it has any bearing on whether the science part is true/false - the majority has been very wrong on occasion and very right most of the time).

Based on that you're considering his stance as an argument against global warming, I think you have completely missed the actual valid arguments he is making. BTW for $128/year you can join APS right here then you'll be entitled to a venue to present your research (pretty much any kind) at their meetings.

Originally Posted by gugi

Based on that you're considering his stance as an argument against global warming, I think you have completely missed the actual valid arguments he is making. BTW for $128/year you can join APS right here then you'll be entitled to a venue to present your research (pretty much any kind) at their meetings.

I am not considering this as proof that global warming doesnt exsist, I am only putting it out there to show that some highly intelligent people, feel that science is being directed by money, and that opposing opinions are being subdued, while agreeing opinions are given free reign.

Your second paragraph above does not hold water according to the letter, he was a member as were the other members who signed his petition, yet they were not allowed a debate on the subject. Imo, anytime one side gets all the press, and the other side is supressed, it is very good evidence that the side getting heard have things to hide, especially when the subject is considered incontrovertible.