This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Just got sent this one, thought it might be of interest.

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html


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?
Click to expand...

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Click to expand...
 
There's a very good series of articles by Dr David Evans on the Joanne Nova site that takes a look at the climate change establishment willingness to allow climate "science" to use questionable methods and techniques to drive the AGW agenda....hence asking the question - is the western climate establishment corrupt?

"....example after example of the Western Climate Establishment allowing mistakes, errors or biases to accumulate ”” each factor on it’s own might be hard to pin down, but the sum total of actions (and inactions) forms a wholly consistent pattern"​

 
Well that article seems to have spread like wild fire. I assume Bolt will be heralding it soon.

This procalimed at WUWT - seriously wtf?
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.
Click to expand...

But who is Hal Lewis? As far a I can tell he is 1 of 48,000 APS members. He is 87 years old. He is not a climate scientist. He was an undergraduate under Oppenheimer in the late 40's. He studied high energy particle physics and solid-state/superconductor physics. Most of his career (from the early 60's) he worked as an administrator and sat on a lot of committees. He wrote an article (not paper) on Nuclear Winter. He is currently listed as an Emeritus Professor at Uni of California, though does not have an office there and there is no link to his work there.

http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/10/hal-lewiss-temper-tantrum.html
 

Attachments

  • siatc.jpg
    5.2 KB · Views: 131
Fair article.
There are many greenhouse gases, some which counteract global warming.

It is true that it is difficult to model. We need a second earth to do experiments on and we need more time to refine the models based on the limited data we have.

We have a range of models each with various assumptions. The models do attempt to take into account the short term pollutents. Experiments show us what greenhouse effect can be expected fromthese gases.

The overall trend however is clear, if not fully dterministic.
 
Knobby22 said:
The overall trend however is clear,
Click to expand...
Is it? How do you know it's not yet another variation in long term climate variations?
And if there's no proof as to the causative effect of human beings' production of CO2, what's the point of engaging in expensive and life affecting carbon taxes/ETS programs when there is absolutely no conclusive proof these will make the slightest difference?
Especially if Australia intends to act without the concerted agreement of the rest of the world. It will simply put us at an economic and trade disadvantage.
 
wayneL said:
I would like to get some comment on:

Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/...nsitivity-impossible-to-accurately-determine/
Click to expand...
You mean, that Doug Hoffman has written to the author of the original commentary for clarification because commenters pointed out that he has misunderstood it and his 65% claim is 100% wrong. The same point is made in a comment on the Watts reposting you've linked to:
All credit to Hoffman for acknowledging that he might be wrong and taking steps to find out.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/estimated-co2-warming-cut-65

The comment he's talking about is here: xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dstevens/publications/penner_ngeo10.pdf
 
Waving back at you,
These articles are all restatements of arguments that have been made and rebutted many, many times. You can recognise them in the single sentence statements at http://www.skepticalscience.com/. If you find the rebuttals unconvincing, I would be interested to know your reasons.

Cheers,

Ghoti
 
Yes, interesting article. Thanks for the link Ghoti, the WUWT link required a subscription to read.

With my limited knowledge on the subject it all seems to make sense to me, though there wasn't really much discussion of absolute values, though I guess it wasn't a paper, it is a commentary piece. The general gist was that more work needs to be conducted to understand the chemical interactions of the short lived gasses and the radiative forcings of these gasses to allow an accurate determination of the climate sensitivity to CO2.

The WUWT headline was Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine. Well we saw from Ghoti's post that the 65% value was not correct. And the actual wording of the second part of the headline was "It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity ... from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era." They then go on to say that we need to reduce these short lived species while accurately measuring atmospheric concentrations and forcings to allow the climate sensitivity to be accurately determined.

The WUWT article implies the short lived species augmenting the CO2 effect by 65% is a new discovery and needs to be factored into the models. When in fact the discussion of this in the paper references the IPCC 4th assessment report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis.

While the Nature Geoscience article is good, the cherry picking and blurring of lines between quotes and commentary in WUWT is disingenuous. I suggest that the actual article be read from Ghoti's supplied link, it tells quite a different story.

It is obvious from this statement in the Nature Geoscience article that the authors regard anthropogenic CO2 as having a real effect on temperatures:
 

You have refused to look into the issues and develop an understanding yet you critiscise people who have. I ask you again to look into the science.

The rest of the world is acting, we are lagging, yet we are the worst polluter.
We can act without damaging our economy if we are smart. You are uninformed.
 

G, feel free to post your comments on the Joanne's site - David will repsond via email or to your post directly. The question still stands unanswered by the alarmists in this thread: Is the climate establishment corrupt?

Leading from this question: I would be more interested to understand if the SkepticalScience site has based their answer "playbook" on the historical temperature analysis from the IPCC's AR1 and AR2 reports where there is a medeivel warming period with higher temps than today or from the IPCC's AR3 report that rewites the 1000 year temp record without the medeivel period and instead introduces the famous hockey stick that shows convienent "unprecendented warming" in the mid-twentith century.

If you believe that there is no corruption in AGW "concensus" science, then you agree with the IPCC's changing temperature record and the famous hockey stick lie.
 
I think a simple restatement of what we know for sure is appropriate at this stage:

We know:
1. Humans ARE burning ****loads of fossil fuels and have thus contrubuted to an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere of some 100ppm over the last 100 years.
2. The average temperatures globally HAVE increased by SOME margin, the actual level being dependent on measurement accuracy and data handling, over the last 30-40 years compared to the 20th century average.
3. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and has been in higher concentrations during periods of warmer climate in the past.

We don't know:
1. Whether CO2 forces the warming or follows.
2. Whether other factors such as sun activity are more influential than CO2 and hence make human additions to CO2 levels inconsequential.

Is that a fair assessment? Obviously it helps if we can all agree on some facts in order to be able to effectively debate "expert" comment one way or the other.
 
Same tired old alarmist defence, attack the messenger.

I think it would be discovered that there's a fair bit of physics in climate science. Real climate science that is. As opposed to the IPCC travelling medicine show, with their all-purpose health tonic.

Who is Hal Lewis, what would he know about climate...certainly not as much as a journalist, or a member of Greenpeace, an ABC TV presenter or a Greens Party staffer. The temerity of these academics to stick their nose into climate science.

Cheers,
Log
 

Pot, kettle black.
Same old attack the messenger being the IPCC.

Why don't you read the IPCC report, then you may not be able to perpetuate this nonsense that thousands of scientists have prostrated their belief in scientific principle and they are undertaking a giant conspiracy on mankind so they get paid, run by the evil secret government who will rule the world..

Lets believe your "good guys", a guy who says he is a trained scientist and a lord (both not true) a weird guy in Australia, another guy in England who is not afraid to change graphs to prove his point, another guy who is paid by the energy and cigarette lobbys to deny everything and finally the latest example and old fart, not working in the field..not working fullstop who wants to be famous before he dies.

I would like to sit you down with a few scientists, the CEO of BHP, the previous leader of the Liberal government, many other well educated people in the world and let them convince you that the Murdoch Press is just paying their dues to the powers that be. By the way, check out Rupert Murdochs opinion also.

I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the (global) warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue.
Rupert Murdoch - Global Warming - Responsibility - Environmental - Leadership

Other quotes follow. Don't be a sheep, look up.

http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/rupert-murdoch/quotes.htm
 
Knobby22 said:
Same old attack the messenger being the IPCC.

Why don't you read the IPCC report
Click to expand...

There's not just one report from the IPCC, each AR contains several reports and summaries.

The obvious corruption is evident in the changing temperature histories (which so far none of the alarmists on this thread are concerned about) and the increasing alarmism across the versions of the reports. Which is then propagated by Gov, MSM and "consensus" scientists from around the world.

There's nothing difficult about understanding why the establishment is pushing a AGW hypothesis using corrupt models - the money to be made on carbon trading/carbon tax is massive.

Then there's the failed Copenhagen treaty (draft) crafted by the establishment including the IPCC prophets. The treaty was simply about driving the global temperature down right? Wrong!

"Cooling" isn't even mentioned in the treaty.
"Warming" only 5 times.

But this didn't upset the AGW alarmists...because the world was going to do something? Right? Yes...it was about shoveling money into the establishment trough. The wording of the treaty was focused on money and sovereignty.

"Financial" is mentioned - 355 times,
"Transfer" - 240 times,
"Government" - 45 times

Feel free to believe the IPCC prophets and send them your money, but make sure you know what your lying in - it stinks of corruption.
 
One thing is for sure, and that is the controversy on this issue.

I am skeptical for a few reasons and one is because there is potentially money in it for Government and this government is like a high maintenance missus that needs excessive funds. I know it may be revenue neutral for a time, but there is no guarantee it will remain so in the future.

It also appears to be a brainwashing exercise when 10 year olds are being taught only one side of this in our schools and made to believe it is fact. There is way to much controversy to call it fact, at least at this stage. This sort of brainwashing to the young ones is cause for more skepticism on my part.

Gillard is desperately wanting a carbon tax. And yet she flies everywhere seemingly without a thought to the planet. This one is rather ironical - she flies the breadth of the country for some backslapping on Australia cutting carbon emmissions:

PM pleased to share good climate story


This only increases my skepticism that it is nothing more than another money grab.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
20K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
12K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...