

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society - jackfoxy
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

======
gmlk
FREEMAN DYSON wrote a very good article about the need for heretics in science

A quote: "I would like to ask two questions. First, if the increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate
similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet?
Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and
the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the
climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to
the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the
wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is
true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it."

<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html>

~~~
tbrownaw
Besides the Sahara, shouldn't Canada, Alaska, Siberia, and maybe even parts of
Antarctica become habitable?

~~~
drallison
Perhaps, but the real problem is the rate of change of climate. In the time
scale it takes for the ecosystem to adapt, global warming is instantaneous
and, hence, disruptive. Evolution and adaption are powerful but slow
mechanisms.

~~~
tbrownaw
We've had bacteria that can digest nylon production byproducts since 40 years
after nylon was invented: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria>
.

After 20 years of observing E. Coli in a medium that had lots of citrate, one
(of twelve) population became able to digest citrate:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-
term_evolution_exp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-
term_evolution_experiment) .

There were only about 400 years between the Medieval Warm Period
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period> and the Little Ice Age
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age> , but Europe still has a
perfectly good ecosystem.

The finches on the Galapagos Islands have been observed closely over a long
period, and seen to change from year to year in response to climate (and
therefore food supply) variations:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant> .

I think you're seriously overestimating the time needed for ecosystems to
adapt, and for lineages of organisms to change significantly.

~~~
drallison
For each of your examples which show successful adaption, I believe that there
are others that show that species have been dying out because they cannot
adapt or evolve because of the rapid changes occurring in the ecosystem or
because the niche to which they adapted is no longer there.

I would prefer not to see humanity bet the ranch on the ability of the global
ecosystem to adapt rapidly when there is scant evidence that such an adaption
will happen at all, much less, happen quickly and painlessly. I think we need
to gather more data and learn more about the way our global ecosystem
functions. I thin it is prudent to work hard to minimize the quantities of
greenhouse gas dumped into the atmosphere, move to renewable energy sources,
and generally try to not perturb the system until we understand it.

~~~
gmlk
In a stable environment a large greedy specialist often does better then a
lean thrifty generalist. In a more dynamic environment a lean thrifty
generalist does better then a larger greedy specialist.

The problem is our methods of food production: Specialized, concentrated and
resource hungry. We might have to become more generalized, distributed and
efficient.

[Note: Currently "efficiency" is often mistake to mean "externalizing the
cost", "doing less", etc. Here it means "more productive with less resources"
and "working smarter not harder"]

Our food lacks any real bio-diversity, it all requires nearly the same
conditions to grow. For every joule of food we are currently using more then
10 joule of energy, basically we are turning oil into food. And it's not very
mobile.

------
araneae
Personally the global warming thing kind of fries my brain.

I'm an ecologist by training, but there are so many papers there that it's
impossible for me to make a good decision about it. On a scientific level, I
find myself screwed.

I'm inclined to trust scientists because I am one, but I'm disinclined to
trust the establishment because I'm a libertarian. So no help for me there. On
a loyalty level, I am screwed.

However, this is my rationalization for doing nothing about global warming
(the position of the agnostic): The amount of co2 in the upper atmosphere is
increasing at amazing rate (280 ppm pre-industrially to 388 ppm, current);
this is a fact. All the proposed legislation would have a completely
negligible effect on this. In order to really stop global warming, not just
slow it down, we would need all nations to completely stop co2 production.
That isn't going to happen. So if global warming is real, our paltry policy is
going to do nothing to stop it. So why bother?

Anyway, just to emphasize, this is my rationalization. It's just something to
make me feel better for being unable to grasp the topic scientifically.

~~~
lzw
As a libertarian, you might find it useful to consider some meta evidence.
Those supporting global warming and who have been pushing for this are
generally politicians such as Al Gore and the IPCC. Those opposing it are
generally business interests, presumably the oil producers if the pro-AGW
people are correct.

Businesses make their money by keeping their employees, their customers and
their shareholders happy. Looking at the history of pollution from a
geographic perspective on a global basis, the worst polluters are generally
governments and countries where there is low standard of living or slower
economic growth due to un-libertarian political government. Richer, free-er
societies tend to have less pollution. Anyway, contrary to businesses
government operates by edict and uses force to ensure compliance. Corporations
can only plead or incentivize, governments can force. But in order to avoid
rebellion, governments must make their subjects believe that they are being
force to "do the right thing".

In every area of life where there is government you can find propaganda saying
that government control is the right thing. The Global Warming movement
originated with government, government controls the purse strings and refuses
to fund people who find evidence that does not support the political position,
and thus this is simply a case of governments doing the propaganda thing to be
able to pass laws that give them extraordinary control over their economies.

Since reading all the papers is admittedly a non-trivial affair, consider the
motives of the groups.

~~~
araneae
It's true that richer countries tend to have less pollution, but it's false to
say it's the result of the free market. The U.S. has strict government-
mandated emission controls. I know that in car emissions the U.S. was actually
the leader in such controls; the European mini was missing from U.S. streets
starting in the mid 1960s because it did not meet the U.S.'s strict standards.

Most societies have pretty bad pollution when they are beginning to
industrialize, and then become rich enough to afford emissions controls via
government regulation.

Re: businesses, I do tend to favor free market solutions. But one thing that
this does not work well at all for is any time there is a common resource; the
atmosphere is such a common resource.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons>

It's actually rational for any individual or business to exploit it such a
common resource. This is why many libertarians advocate private ownership of
land instead of government ownership; if people are farming a rented plot of
land, they'll gladly strip it of nutrients. If they own that piece of land,
they'll be more likely to treat it well so it will continue to support them.

As for the motives of the groups, it's obvious that neither group necessarily
has our best interest at heart. Businesses are a great boon to society not
because they are trying to help society, but because by trying to make money,
they produce cheap goods. Governments are ostensibly in the business of trying
to help society, but of course they are merely composed of people who want to
get paid for doing their job. In the end both are after profit, which is fine.
I don't think it necessarily says anything about who is correct about GW
though.

------
sprout
>I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer
represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

This guy has a lot of gall to end with that after making such flimsy
allegations of fraud against an entire academic discipline. His hyperbolic
screeching about the "flood of money" would better be directed at the oil
industry.

That's not to say the climate change crowd is without its biases, but if he
honestly thinks that they are intentionally committing fraud for love of money
and prestige, he is deluded.

Personally, I think that the people he slanders are acting honestly, but I
might present a more modest hypothesis:

The people who do research on the climate and on the environment have a
dramatic love of forests and lakes and natural, untouched wilderness. Anyone
who stands in the midst of the mountains cannot help but see why this is.
These people might even be willing to lie to protect them. Money, I assure
you, has nothing to do with it. But unfailing love of the natural world? Sure,
there are people who would lie without hesitation to protect that. But money?
Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in
fossil fuels, and I think Hal Lewis' focus on money shows how little he
understands the people he maligns.

I don't include myself among them because I am no such researcher, but I share
their values, their love of the wild things. Lewis, I'm not entirely sure what
he loves. I find it difficult to believe he's really interested in science. I
can't believe a rationalist would look at any of the evidence available and be
so convinced of fraud.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in
fossil fuels..._

Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study forests
and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a scientist
who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the
atmosphere and ocean.

As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data, generate
hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted all the
flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process has been
subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it.

~~~
borism
_> Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study
forests and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a
scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified
models of the atmosphere and ocean._

It has far more importance (and much more zeroes!) to a scientist who conducts
studies on behalf of Energy Industry or for Corporations in said industry.

 _> As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data,
generate hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted
all the flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process
has been subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it._

Well, I guess the only option in that case is to proceed with his own
independent study?

 _> scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified
models of the atmosphere and ocean_

So we shall conduct experiments only when we have complete model for
everything?

------
ErrantX
He's clearly very angry, I don't exactly blame him either.

The problem with the "climate change debate" is that it is a) political and b)
full of bad science. The actual problem, of course, is that the bad science
and the political happen, in this case, to agree.

To those decrying his strong assertions of fraud, I agree there is a little
too much hyperbole in his resignation. _However_ I think he is absolutely
right that the money is skewing the science, as much as the politics.

What the scientists don't seem to understand is that a politician probably
doesn't _really_ care what happens in the future (so long as it does not
happen in his/her lifetime) they are more interested in the political
advantage it is offering. This is the same for pretty much any wide-scale
"popular" crisis that occurs (e.g. the bird flu "pandemic").

And, so, we are in this weird situation where a very serious issue is facing
us (well, facing us in a few generations) but most of the work seems to relate
to arguing, using it to political advantage and scaring the public.

Rather than actually doing anything very much.

And the public have absolutely no idea what to believe, expect or do (except
for some vague notion that maybe they should invest in a solar panel). The
media have been handed the words "a scientific consensus" which confuses
people even more, and means absolutely nothing. The media and the politicos
have spun the whole thing into a mess of fear in the populace; who has this
sense that there is a major urgency and we should be panicking. When clearly,
that is a silly response.

The truth, sadly, is that nothing is at all clear at this point, apart from
the fact we are seeing some form of, probably quite significant, climate
change some portion of which is out fault. And only a developing sense of what
to do about it and what it will lead to (environment wise). Anyone who claims
to be able to predict the outcome, from this point on, with any degree of
certainty I am quite happy to call a fraud. Ditto for anyone that claims
conclusively to have shown the extent to which we are contributing.

We end up with two polarized camps; the "global-warmists" and the "deniers".
And we are all supposed to take a side, choose our weapons and go for the
throat. Which in itself detracts from sensible, logical ideas like self-
sufficiency, less consumerism, clean energy, sustainable environments etc.
(because they become part of the whole debate and no longer just a neat thing
we could/should all do).

This makes me very cross (can you tell), but I have given up waffling about it
too much (this post excluded) and simply invest in my own sustainability and
remain healthily sceptical about any new GW science.

~~~
lzw
Please call those who disagree with AGW theory "skeptics". The use of the word
"deniers" is pejorative, and seems meant to imply they are "denying reality."

His use of the word "fraud" seems well supported considering the amount of
scientific fraud that has gone on here, to such a degree that you, for
instance, appear to be open minded but generally unaware of the evidence
against AGW. (This is not a criticism of you, just using you as an example of
the type of information that gets out.) Further, the actions in climategate,
which involved adding an artificial factor to create warming, are fairly
considered to be fraud. If this factor were known and the full data were
presented to people, then it would be good science as it would be attempting
to compensate--- but then I'm being very generous because I believe a fair
assessment would show the factor is not based on science but based on a need
to show warming.

~~~
ErrantX
Sorry, in case it is not clear I am personally sceptic of a lot of the global
warming science [but not climate change, gladly there is at least solid
factual information there]. I did deliberately put deniers in quotes :)

The fraud bit I was referring to other posts in this thread that were talking
about monetary fraud. As I mentioned, I agree there is a lot of bad, often
fraudulent, science going on in this field.

And yet, as a sceptic, I don't see why, for example, sustainable energy is a
bad idea. Or why it is even part of the debate, rather than standing on its
own merits :)

~~~
lzw
My position is that the initiation of force is immoral. So, if all the Venture
Capitalists in Silicon Valley think that there is something going in the green
energy sector and they want to pour a bunch of money into it, more power to
them.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the recent popularity of this sector among them
is more to due with the expectation of buckets of cash coming from government
than seeing a viable economic model to exploit.

Viable economic models work to improve society, and they produce profits that
turn around and can be invested in a variety of potentially viable
technologies and economic models. It is a virtuous cycle.

So, in that context, I also am in favor of "sustainable energy" as well. I
just have a problem with government sticking guns in people's faces, taking
the money they would have used for their babies medicine and giving it to
someone who created an politically favored business in order to get government
money.

I'm not saying your position is any different, just that when government gets
involved things get confused. People forget that there is a huge difference
between VC money and government money.

Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word "deniers".

~~~
ErrantX
>just that when government gets involved things get confused.

Agreed. Because the government is not really all that interested, at the end
of the day, in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

> Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word
> "deniers". My fault. I used "global-warmists" instead of "alarmists" because
> the word slipped my mind. So it does look like I come down on one side of
> that sentence :)

------
zdw
money trail !always = scientific fraud

But it sometimes does - see, for example, the debunked "vaccines cause autism"
research that was promoted by lawyers trying to get rich.

With climate change, there's plenty of money on both sides, thus probably some
malfeasance going on in both camps, but the consensus is definitely for it
existing:

[http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-
change-a-...](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-
consensus-among-scientists/)

If that's not convincing, the US military is convinced of it, and is already
looking into the political/military effects of climate change - they're not
known to be a particularly progressive organization...

~~~
lzw
The US military has experimented with LSD, psychic phenomena and for a period
of time "Believed" in UFOs.

The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science is
being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families. The
"Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense.

I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism. Just
that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political witch hunt
that has nothing to do with science.

~~~
tbrownaw
> The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science
> is being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families.
> The "Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense.

Um, what? I thought the research showing a link was actually fraudulent (as in
the guy took money to make shit up):
<http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850> . Even if his misconduct
wasn't quite _that_ bad, the paper was still bad enough that it got retracted
by the journal that originally published it:
[http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/the-lancet-
retra...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/the-lancet-retracts-
paper-linking-mmr-vaccines-and-autism.ars) .

> I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism.
> Just that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political
> witch hunt that has nothing to do with science.

My understanding is that there was _one_ paper (now retracted) claiming a
possible link, followed by the author telling the press there was a link,
followed by (1) many papers disproving any link and (2) lots of "OMG PANIC"
news stories and celebrities telling people to do stupid shit.

------
mark_l_watson
Hal is an old family friend - a good guy. I have known him since I was an
infant.

I also happened to take a physics class from him in 1969 and even back then he
was warning about energy problems, etc.

------
DanielBMarkham
Side note: one of the most awesome parts about getting old is that you can say
exactly how you feel about things. I found parts of his letter undiplomatic
(to say the least), but I also felt I was actually sitting down and talking to
the guy. That type of honest forthrightness (and not contrived outrage or
sliming people for political reasons) isn't seen very much. Agree or disagree,
I am able to empathize with the author.

------
drallison
For people interested in the background of this letter of resignation, you
might want to read this paper. The deniers of global warming are a small, well
organized, and well funded group with interesting political and social
connections.

[http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-
wegman...](http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-
report/) is the one-page abstract. It points at 2 PDFs: a 6-pager that has a a
ToC, Executive Summary, background, and guide to reading the rest; and a
250-page Report, of which that is the first 6 pages. (The main discussion is
about 25 pages, then backed by 200+ pages of appendices.)

------
jacquesm
Cue the global warming conspiracy theorists to spin this far and wide.

What makes it interesting is that to me there really can't be a global warming
scam, it either is real, or it is not, we may be able to do something about
it, or it may turn out we're along for the ride.

But which ever of those is the case it is not going to hurt us one bit to
know.

Writing it all off as a scam is going way too fast, some people have been
messing with the data, that much has been established but we are nowhere near
the point where the whole thing should be written off.

edit: would the downmodders be so kind as to explain which part of the above
was the reason for the moderation?

~~~
mquander
I downmodded this because it's content-free ("Either AGW is real, or it's not.
Maybe we should find out.") and it's sprinkled with emotionally-laden words
like "scam" and "conspiracy theorists." I don't think it's good to approach a
flamewar-prone topic like that.

~~~
jacquesm
Thanks for that input.

It is real or it is not is simply indicating that I think that as far as the
science is concerned this is _still_ an open question, even though you can
find plenty of stuff out there which states with great levels of certitude
that it is the one or the other, I simply disagree with that.

As for the conspiracy theorists, yes, I really do believe they will be all
over this, any high profile person that would use words like "It is of course,
the global warming scam" (which came directly from the article) is going to
find their words quoted forever by those that would rather deny the
possibility of this somehow being effected by humanity.

I'm on the fence I'd like to know but I don't, anybody that is yelling 'scam'
or 'for sure' is most likely pushing an agenda.

So I'm all for science to be done here preferably in as independent a style as
possible with a strong accent on transparency.

~~~
lzw
Why do you say you're on the fence when you characterize those who are
skeptical of the AGW theory as "conspiracy theorists"?

As an aside, I find this characterization generally amusing because it seems
to come from an assumption that conspiracies are so rare as to not be worth
considering. The climategate scandal is a pretty clear conspiracy. In fact,
the review policy of APS that he's objecting to is a conspiracy. I think it
would be hard to argue that conspiracies are rare. Every time more than one
person cooperates to hide, obscure or perpetuate a fraud, it is a conspiracy.
APS's policies that affect selection of papers based on a pre-scientific
conclusion are in effect a fraudulent distortion of the state of the art in
physics.

This isn't like finding a unicorn.

~~~
jacquesm
Being skeptical is one thing, categorically dismissing each and every finding
of fact as cooked up to manufacture a story that has not rational basis is
quite another.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but not everybody gets to have their
own facts.

Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact, enough evidence that is beyond
reproach of any kind is left that we can safely conclude that this is
apparently really so.

What remains is whether - and if so to what extent - we are contributory to
this and regardless of whether we are if this is something that we can do
something about it and if we should (assuming that we can).

Conspiracy theorists reject the whole thing out of hand and make it seem as
though all of it, evidence included was made up. That puts them right out
there with the people that don't believe men ever walked on the moon.

There are conspiracy theorists on both sides of this debate, and somewhere in
the middle you will find people working hard - and not all of them because
they are on the payroll of an institution with an agenda- to try to find out
what is really going on.

~~~
tbrownaw
> Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact, enough evidence that is beyond
> reproach of any kind is left that we can safely conclude that this is
> apparently really so.

Relativity is a theory, even though it has been experimentally verified.
Newtonian mechanics and the luminiferous aether are also theories.

Gravity, global warming (on any given timescale), the freezing point of water,
and the presence of little green men on Mars are facts.

But in order to conclude that global warming is a _true_ fact, you need to
specify it better. "The earth was warmer at the end of 2008 than at the end of
2005" is false[1]; "the earth was warmer at the end of 2009 than at the end of
1999" is true; "the earth was warmer at the end of 2008 than at the end of
1988" depends on whether you're talking about monthly (true) or
trailing-12-months (false) measurements. If you pick your date range right,
you can get any truth-value you want.

[1] <http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2>

~~~
jacquesm
That's true, which makes this as difficult a thing as it is.

------
mootothemax
Are there any good links that give a fair and balanced* view of both sides? I
realise that I could be asking for the impossible here, but for example, I'm
finding it difficult to find a view against climate change that doesn't
irritate me by mentioning mediaeval temperature logs and yet criticise the
modern temperature logs for accuracy.

*TM News International

~~~
danielharan
There aren't two sides of this. The vast majority of scientists that know
what's going on are terrified. A few, many paid by the same lobby
organizations that backed FUD on cigarette smoking, are creating a "debate".

Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus.
By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late.

The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how
much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that
something else is causing the recent heat records.

Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some
esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming
does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.

~~~
nkurz
Daniel ---

Your statements create the implication that the Hal Lewis, the author of this
piece, is being paid by someone to intentionally spread misinformation. Is
this a misreading? For while he may be scientifically wrong, I wouldn't make
this accusation lightly.

According to the article the last straw for him, was that he obtained 200
signatures from members of the APS (all scientists) asking for the creation of
a group to look at Climate Science. These 200 presumably thought there was
room or need for debate. Given your "few"/"many" construction, I have to
wonder: how many of these were being paid off and by whom?

~~~
danielharan
Is he a climatologist?

~~~
nkurz
No, he's a scientist. Is there a significant difference?

~~~
jonhendry
Well, yes.

Linus Pauling was a scientist, but not a biologist, thus his nutty Vitamin C
theories.

~~~
nkurz
True of course, but I meant "does the fact that he is a physicist and not a
climatologist affect the implication that he is being funded to spread
disinformation?". The original article does not proclaim any particular theory
on Global Warming. Rather, it criticizes the process by which science is being
politicized. This strikes me as a matter for which any scientist should be
allowed to speak.

I take offense at the notion that anyone who would want to question the
process can be presumed to be acting out of pecuniary interest rather than a
desire to find truth. So I ask again: Daniel, are you claiming that Hal Lewis
and at least some of the 200 people who signed his petition are being paid to
do so?

------
lzw
Since this is a global warming related topic, we're seeing the very common
global warming debate. I've a few points to make in defense of this ex-member
of APS, and in response to the arguments that are so commonly presented for
AGW.

Science does not operate by consensus. The consensus of scientists for many
decades was that the earth was flat. as we well know, the earth is not flat.
(But if you want to argue that the earth is, in fact flat, I'm willing to hear
your arguments. What's the worst that could happen? I could be amused. But if
I've been tricked by the Round Earth Scam then I'd want to know. It is silly
to say it is beyond discussion simply because most people believe the earth is
round.)

When I worked for a national lab I would, for amusements sake, take the
position that Einstein was wrong, and I would argue against general
relativity. I did this with Professors, Post Docs, both theoretical and
empirical and a variety of people much smarter and better informed than me.
This was educational and a good exercise. While I may have irritated them on
occasions, and while general relativity is about as close as you get to
"settled science", never once was the argument given to me that this was a
correct theory based on the "consensus of scientists".

If you're arguing for a scientific position and you're using "preponderance of
the evidence" in lawyer speak to make your position, you're not actually
taking the scientific position, you are taking an anti-science position. The
preponderance of the evidence will always fit a conventional view, and the
advancement of science comes from finding something that does not fit the
conventional view. This is what careers are (or were, apparently) made on.

So, the argument that this is "settled" and therefore is not worth debating
and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to this theory is irrational, is a very
profoundly anti-science perspective. It is also the defacto position and has
been since I first heard of global warming. How can a scientific movement
start out by presupposing its own conclusions as fact?

Further, if you do not wish to spend the time reading papers, or investigating
the matter at a deep level, do not advocate for a position on the internet.
This kind of advocation is the worst combination of politics and science.
You're arguing for a scientific conclusion based on your political ideology,
not based on science. (Which is why preponderance of evidence is convenient -
it is an attempt to short circuit debate so you don't have to debate the
scientific points.)

AGW is easily disproven with straightforward observations (not to mention a
mountain of peer reviewed papers to the contrary, none of which can be
effectively debated in this forum.) The easy disproof of AGW is:

1\. The earth is getting colder, not warmer, while CO2 levels continue to
rise.

2\. Historically the earth has mostly been much colder and if you want to find
a warming trend you will find the one since the last ice age, which has
happened after every ice age.

3\. During the period where the planet was getting warmer in the recent past,
coinciding with the solar cycle, mars got warmer as well, yet mars has no
humans on it.

4\. The climate gate emails reveal deliberate distortion of the numbers by
adding a "fudge factor" which accounts for essentially all the warming shown
in that "baseline" data.

5\. The only papers showing warming on a global scale are showing the results
of computer models that do not have predictive value if you apply past data,
thus they are predicated on the assumption that some major change in the
global climate has been reached, with no historical precedent. EG: the models
are not actually models.

6\. The planet has experienced several periods that were much warmer and had
much higher CO2. While CO2 and warming are correlated, the CO2 levels tend to
come after the warming, not before. This whole thing could be called a
correlation-causation error if it weren't being pushed so adamantly in the
face of scientific disproof.

7\. The AGW movement is a political movement, primarily centered around Al
Gore and the IPCC Neither of which are scientific. The IPCC rewrote the
statements of the scientists who contributed to the report because it felt
they were not declarative enough. The motive here is pretty obvious, as if AGW
were accepted, government would gain massive power to regulate the global
economy and people everywhere, as has already been demonstrated by such
travesties of economics and justice as "Cap and Trade".

8\. When Al Gore started to harp on this issue it was a legitimate concern as
he portrays in his movie, after meeting a UCSD professor who told him the
theory. A decade later, in the 1980s the UCSD professor discovered his theory
was wrong, and being a man of integrity, published his findings. Al Gore,
being a man of no integrity continues to pretend like he didn't.

9\. The IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a significant impact on
the planet and not able to cause a "Greenhouse" effect. CO2 in the atmosphere
is a tiny fraction of a percent. IT is vastly outweighed by water vapor which
has much more significant IR absorption and thus is the source of essentially
all possible greenhouse effect. But Clouds are not something humans can
control,and therefore, the AGW proponents focus on CO2.

10\. AGW theory is based on the idea of some magical tipping point after which
the effect will become run-away and beyond our control. The fear being spread
is argued on this basis. However in the past, CO2 has been higher than it is
today, and in fact has been dramatically higher than it is today, with no
runaway effect. (Further, the planet has been much warmer than it is today,
warmer than even the worst case scenarios being projected, and still went into
subsequent ice ages.)

11\. Numerous, possibly, every place where we should see this warming showing
up, we are not. However, if you google for any of these you can find them used
as evidence of warming, by either adding fudge factors or selectively citing
data and ignoring the data that shows cooling. This shows a consistent and
persistent fraud being perpetrated arguing for AGW, at least in the
blogosphere. (Not going to make the allegation against scientists, I believe
they are being honest, but they are working with fabricated baseline data that
was at the center of climate-gate.)

I'm not going to cite any papers here because scientific reality does not come
nicely summed up in a single paper making a specific point. Many of my claims
are easily verifiable. eg: "As of April 2010, carbon dioxide in the Earth's
atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume."

You can quibble with my words in the above statements and it is quite possible
I spoke over broadly once or twice. But you can't change these basic facts
about the situation. I know there are blog posts from non-scientists who
"debunk" probably every thing stated above. If all you need to believe in
something is for someone on the internet to have written a rationalization, no
matter how ignorant or dishonest, then there is no convincing you against AGW.

But it really doesn't matter, even if you reject every one of my points.
Science is not about consensus. Science is not about downvoting people who
dare to point out facts not consistent with the popular theory.

Science is about applying the scientific method and following the data
wherever it leads, not only if it follows a political agenda, or your source
of fundings political agenda.

IF you downvote me, do so knowing that you cannot claim that I have not made
an argument, have not contributed to this discussion, and have not presented
evidence defending my position. I have done all three. Realize you are
downvoting me because you do not like the conclusion I reached.

Science should not be about removing funding from people who discover
inconvenient truths that go agains the political winds. Hacker news should not
be about burying people who fail to march in lock step with popular opinion.

~~~
borism
_> 1\. The earth is getting colder, not warmer, while CO2 levels continue to
rise._

evidence?

why are Arctic Ocean, Greenland, Antarctica and mountain glaciers losing so
much ice all at the same time?

~~~
stewartbutler
Biggest CO2 sink is the ocean. Increase CO2 content in ocean water and you
produce carbonic acid. I'd assume that this is at least a contributor to ice
melt.

However, you could contend that many of the northern waters are similarly
contaminated by acid produced from volcanic gas, such as in the Icelandic
area.

Either way, I can't source any documented evidence either way at the moment.
The problem is that if you stipulate that scientists are colluding to produce
evidence in support of a theory, all evidence supporting or denying said
theory must be assumed contaminated unless proven otherwise. I have no access
to the data, nor could I rule out scientific misconduct in the data collection
even if I had access.

~~~
jonhendry
"Increase CO2 content in ocean water and you produce carbonic acid. I'd assume
that this is at least a contributor to ice melt."

And that applies to melting ice _above_ water how, exactly?

And I'm not sure why slightly acidic water would have an effect on ice,
anyway. I mean, any more than the presence of _salt_.

~~~
stewartbutler
Mea culpa- I did not remember the document I read correctly. The carbonic acid
references are usually a separate but related concern. As CO2 dissolves in
water, it changes the pH balance, which is having a detrimental effect on sea
life (esp. on the micro scale) in the area. This is more prevalent at the
poles, due to CO2 more readily dissolving into cold water.

<http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/Science.aspx>

------
zeynel1
From the resignation letter:

"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."

Physics is a corrupt professions.
[http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/he-who-pays-
physics...](http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/he-who-pays-physics-gets-
to-define-the-world/)

I am glad that Prof. Lewis came out with this public exposure of the
corruption of physics. This is very important. This is independent of climate
issue. The most corruption occurs in academic physics.

------
dmfdmf
Wow

------
jonhendry
Another case of "Aging scientist turns into a crank". See also: Linus Pauling,
Freeman Dyson, James Watson, etc.

------
GnarfGnarf
Fatal error: Out of memory (allocated 1572864) (tried to allocate 4864 bytes)
in /home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/html/parameter.php on line 146

Fatal error: Class declarations may not be nested in
/home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/error/exception.php on line 25

WTF!!

