- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
His qualifications are impressive:
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.
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.
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)
Yes it is. And inconvenient.That stuff is old...
Yes it is. And inconvenient.
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.
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.
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.
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.In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
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?Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting
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!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.
The difference between you and me is that you believe in conspiracies.
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".
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.
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 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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?