Labor's carbon tax lie

[sails]

Yet another scientist who doesn't think the 'science is settled'. It's becoming a very long and well credentialed list. Worthy of note that it's the senior scientists who are coming out, i.e. the ones the carbonista science establishment can't suppress or defame.

His qualifications are impressive:

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)

I see that he resigned in October last year so he would surely be even more appalled at the global warming scam that is continuing to infiltrate so many countries.

 

[Knobby22]

That stuff is old and been talked about previously.
Every group has a crank, look up his history. Not going through it again.

 

[Logique]

That stuff is old...

Yes it is. And inconvenient.

 

[sails]

We are talking about eight months ago - the news is not that old. Good to be reminded that qualified people have turned their backs on this potential money scam.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes it is. And inconvenient.

Look up the guy.

 

[wayneL]

That stuff is old and been talked about previously.
Every group has a crank, look up his history. Not going through it again.

Because you can't counter his points, only create ad hominem attacks.

 

[Knobby22]

Because you can't counter his points, only create ad hominem attacks.

Ok, here's the answers, guess what he is incorrect - but we have done it before.. Another man of straw.

APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.

In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.

Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

 

[wayneL]

That is just a retort echoing previous assertions with no more credibility than a denial from any organisation.

He said she said.

 

[Knobby22]

The difference between you and me is that you believe in conspiracies.

You would rather believe a cranky old bloke while I would believe the whole organisation of many physicists.

But you would say the physicists are all corrupt and part of a global conspiracy whilst I would say that the old bloke is seeking recognition in his last days and is a bit of a crank.

 

[springhill]

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.

Would they otherwise if it were the case?

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

48,000 members and relatively few conduct climate change research? Yet they use the 48,000 number as if it adds weight to their claims? Is this the blind leading the blind?

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;

Aswell as natural activity, volcano in Chile perfect example.

Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

But not the worst, methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Nitrous Oxide is 310 times more effective.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

So they are clear, but uncertain.

Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.

Solicit opinions from people who mostly don't study global warm..... oops, climate change.

Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

Just because he is a lone voice, doesn't automatically make him wrong, then again maybe he is.

 

[white_goodman]

i cant really blame scientists following their own self interest, creating a never ending issue which basically gives them employment and govt funding into eternity.. gravy train economics in the works..

watch this on the 'free market case for going green', if they were really genuine we could acheive a clean energy society without the propaganda and unnecessary alarmist attitude.. but wheres the money in that?

they seem to love waving the flag of "free lunch public sector bureaucracy"

http://documentaryfilmsource.com/a-free-market-case-for-green-energy.html

 

[Julia]

In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:

Um, what would you expect them to say? They are hardly likely to agree with his sentiments and will obviously issue a denial. Nothing unusual about that, it's human nature.

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting

Picky, I know, but spelling errors in an official response do somewhat create a poor impression: i.e. 'benefiting' has only one 't'. Surely such an august organisation could get something so basic correct?

Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

This sounds eerily like the Australian government's Multi Party Committee on Climate Change which admitted only those contributors who agreed with the pre-ordained outcome!

 

[white_goodman]

The difference between you and me is that you believe in conspiracies.

i find this statement very funny...

let your religious debate continue

 

[drsmith]

This could be interesting,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...n-tax-plebiscite/story-e6freqmx-1226078113949

Given that he would need Tony Windsor plus one of Rob Oakshott/Andrew Wilkie/Adam Bandt, I can only assume it's a pressure tactic.

 

[drsmith]

The Greens are not backing down either, or so it would seem.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-carbon-tax-deal/story-fn59niix-1226078121331

A spokeswoman for Senator Brown said last night Labor and the Greens would continue their discussions this week but the Greens "did not expect any immediate final conclusion".

 

[Ruby]

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

???????????

That is an odd, unscientific and meaningless statement to make. It is a bit like saying "Oxygen stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years." Well.......yes.... fortunately for us it does!!!

You make it sound as though CO2 is some sort of poison infiltrating our atmosphere that needs to be broken down into harmless components, like plastic in landfill. CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere and an essential participant in the cycle of all living things.

 

[sails]

This could be interesting,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...n-tax-plebiscite/story-e6freqmx-1226078113949

Given that he would need Tony Windsor plus one of Rob Oakshott/Andrew Wilkie/Adam Bandt, I can only assume it's a pressure tactic.

I think a referendum is a fair request given that Gillard continues with the threat of imposing her carbon tax prior to the next election despite her pre-election promise and opinion polls going against her.

If the indies really believe in democracy, then they should have no problem in supporting this request.

If Gillard imposes this tax against the will of the majority, it will mean certain defeat at the next election and then the Coalition will repeal it (if they can unscramble the egg). Gillard really needs to have a mandate from the people and so, imo, she should: (a) agree to a referendum or (b) wait until after the next election before imposing a tax that may be against the will of the majority.

 

[Knobby22]

i find this statement very funny...

let your religious debate continue

Take half the statement out of context and then make an insult! Easier than arguing the point.

 

[white_goodman]

Take half the statement out of context and then make an insult! Easier than arguing the point.

its difficult to debate with a religious fanatic

 

[sails]

This could be interesting,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...n-tax-plebiscite/story-e6freqmx-1226078113949

Given that he would need Tony Windsor plus one of Rob Oakshott/Andrew Wilkie/Adam Bandt, I can only assume it's a pressure tactic.

Poll:
Should there be a national plebiscite on whether to impose a carbon tax?
Yes 88.46% (2016 votes)
No 11.54% (263 votes)

Scroll down this article to find the poll:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...mpose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226078085686