• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top scientist resigns from post - admits Global Warming is a scam

sawdust

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
1,533
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is worth reading in it's entirety.

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
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:

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society ? reasonmclucus - My Telegraph
 
kind of dishonest of you to use the word "admits" when you know that "believes" is a much more appropriate term.
 
"admits Global Warming is a scam" - I'm stupid and I don't know what "scam" means. Are you saying that "green technology" is a scam too and that we should be burning as much coal and oil as possible?
 
As a physics graduate myself... I completely agree.

.... I understand that Climatology is a very difficult science... too many variables, very difficult to actually test... They didn't know where lightening strikes came from until the last few years... It's a science where the hard stuff hasn't been done yet...we can't even accurately predict the weather, it's chaos. Real science happens in climatology, but it's a similar field to biology... it is not a fundamental science(By this term I mean for example it goes as Physics is the most fundamental science---than chemistry--->than Biology, The "Chemistry" and "Physics" of Climatology is largely un-pioneered ground because of the amount of variables, of course we know a lot... but we also don't know a lot.

It is a rarer thing to approach climatology from the ground up than from the top down. Top down scientists have less experience in math and less experience in the fields they derive from. Though, the same argument can be made visa versa...unfortunately we need a Phys-Bio-Chem-Climatologist that is not people bribed and motivated by the climate change crew... and that is very rare.
 
kind of dishonest of you to use the word "admits" when you know that "believes" is a much more appropriate term.

Also a bit of an old story considering that it was announced 5 years ago.
 
Of course. Let's for a moment ignore the monetary reward to be reaped by merely denouncing global warming from a position of credibility (in an entirely different field) without doing any of the leg work yourself.
 
Of course. Let's for a moment ignore the monetary reward to be reaped by merely denouncing global warming from a position of credibility (in an entirely different field) without doing any of the leg work yourself.
Curious, who would pay this monetary reward?
Also most Climate Scientist, are physics by education.
Hansen, and Mann, come to mind.
 
kind of dishonest of you to use the word "admits" when you know that "believes" is a much more appropriate term.

Follow the link. That's the title of the article. A critique of the article would have been more enlightening than nitpicking the authors title.
 
Follow the link. That's the title of the article. A critique of the article would have been more enlightening than nitpicking the authors title.

I did and the word "admit" does not appear in the title.
 
Of course. Let's for a moment ignore the monetary reward to be reaped by merely denouncing global warming from a position of credibility (in an entirely different field) without doing any of the leg work yourself.

There is more money in promoting AGW than there is questioning it. That's part of the problem. Money taints the science.
 
My apologies. I copied and pasted the title from this link. Top scientist resigns from post - admits Global Warming is a scam -- Science & Technology -- Sott.net I wanted to go to the source article which led me to the Telegraph and a different title.

no worries. sorry for jumping on you like that. here is a monkey emoji: :monkey

I still don't like the use of that word, but my criticism would be to the author and not to you. no one "admitted" to anything. I have no detailed critique of the article other than to say that it is pretty standard from what I've seen from climate change deniers and isn't all that convincing to me.
 
As a physics graduate myself... I completely agree.

.... I understand that Climatology is a very difficult science... too many variables, very difficult to actually test... They didn't know where lightening strikes came from until the last few years... It's a science where the hard stuff hasn't been done yet...we can't even accurately predict the weather, it's chaos. Real science happens in climatology, but it's a similar field to biology... it is not a fundamental science(By this term I mean for example it goes as Physics is the most fundamental science---than chemistry--->than Biology, The "Chemistry" and "Physics" of Climatology is largely un-pioneered ground because of the amount of variables, of course we know a lot... but we also don't know a lot.

It is a rarer thing to approach climatology from the ground up than from the top down. Top down scientists have less experience in math and less experience in the fields they derive from. Though, the same argument can be made visa versa...unfortunately we need a Phys-Bio-Chem-Climatologist that is not people bribed and motivated by the climate change crew... and that is very rare.

No one cares about skepticism. Skepticism is good.

What's stupid is when people use their religious-style belief in order to refuse to acknowledge the continually mounting evidence that is global warming. Since you seem to have wandered into that crowd, you might want to request a refund for that degree.
 
No one cares about skepticism. Skepticism is good.

What's stupid is when people use their religious-style belief in order to refuse to acknowledge the continually mounting evidence that is global warming. Since you seem to have wandered into that crowd, you might want to request a refund for that degree.

I am not religious... and who are you to determine anything about what I should do with my degree? I worked very hard for it... and I welcome you to try to do any better, most can't graduate with a Physics degree and go to grad school in physics...
 
There is more money in promoting AGW than there is questioning it. That's part of the problem. Money taints the science.

Not even slightly true.

In science, the money is funding research without regard to conclusion.

The guys who write conclusions for the denialist believers are the only corrupt ones here.
 
Okay, that doesn't mean you don't have an unscientific belief being applied to trump a steady crescendo of empirical evidence backed by theory...

and who are you to determine anything about what I should do with my degree? I worked very hard for it... and I welcome you to try to do any better, most can't graduate with a Physics degree and go to grad school in physics... it was hell

I have said nothing about Trump... And I have said nothing but that we don't know as much as people think we do... many so called "experts" can hardly qualify ethically and intellectually....
 
no worries. sorry for jumping on you like that. here is a monkey emoji: :monkey .
That may be the funniest thing I have ever seen posted on this site.

:lamo
 
and who are you to determine anything about what I should do with my degree? I worked very hard for it... and I welcome you to try to do any better, most can't graduate with a Physics degree and go to grad school in physics... it was hell

I have said nothing about Trump... And I have said nothing but that we don't know as much as people think we do... many so called "experts" can hardly qualify ethically and intellectually....

I was using the word "trump" not referring to Donald Trump.

Trump: (verb) beat (someone or something) by saying or doing something better. [synonyms: outshine, outclass, upstage, eclipse, surpass, outdo, outperform]

I may be overstepping here and misinterpreting what you've meant. The person you've agreed with is calling all climate change research corrupt, pseudoscientific nonsense.

More likely, some massive, agenda-driven agency tossed him a bag of money to publish this statement eluding to a grand scientific conspiracy to steal money from taxpayers for no reason.

"One planet, one experiment"
 
I was using the word "trump" not referring to Donald Trump.

Trump: (verb) beat (someone or something) by saying or doing something better. [synonyms: outshine, outclass, upstage, eclipse, surpass, outdo, outperform]

I may be overstepping here and misinterpreting what you've meant. The person you've agreed with is calling all climate change research corrupt, pseudoscientific nonsense.

More likely, some massive, agenda-driven agency tossed him a bag of money to publish this statement eluding to a grand scientific conspiracy to steal money from taxpayers for no reason.

"One planet, one experiment"

I do think there IS a factor... the money that comes with climate change is real, and it's having real consequences on the science.

We know for a fact that the climate is warming... we know for a fact that the planet has gone under warming and cooling cycles too... and we are nearing the warming peak in the natural earth climate cycles..

Has humans caused this entirely? It doesn't seem so.... are humans making it worse? and maybe speeding up the process? that seems more reasonable. Are we making the process irreversible? we don't know...it's all speculation. Are there a lot of things humans are doing that is are impacting the planets ecosystem for the worse.... absolutely.

"One Planet, one experiment" is pascals wager, scientists are not political, they are not involved in policy... this is not their job, but it has become their job, to specifically find research for politically and economically motivated ideas.... and I think that is what the article is about, it's not genuine science, it has become science with an agenda too often.
 
I do think there IS a factor... the money that comes with climate change is real, and it's having real consequences on the science.

We know for a fact that the climate is warming... we know for a fact that the planet has gone under warming and cooling cycles too... and we are nearing the warming peak in the natural earth climate cycles..

Has humans caused this entirely? It doesn't seem so.... are humans making it worse? and maybe speeding up the process? that seems more reasonable. Are we making the process irreversible? we don't know...it's all speculation. Are there a lot of things humans are doing that is are impacting the planets ecosystem for the worse.... absolutely.

"One Planet, one experiment" is pascals wager, scientists are not political, they are not involved in policy... this is not their job, but it has become their job, to specifically find research for politically and economically motivated ideas.... and I think that is what the article is about, it's not genuine science, it has become science with an agenda too often.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1443048977.116804.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1443048995.930133.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1443049013.480868.jpg

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

When you say "it's all speculation," you're speculating. And it's certainly not all speculation. I have a greenhouse. Believe me, the greenhouse effect is absolutely sound science. If you're just skeptical, that's good, that's healthy, and i encourage that. If you're dismissing climate science because of disbelief, that's irrational.

"One planet, one experiment" is a quote from the great Edward O. Wilson. He is illuminating the fact that, if you're wrong, the entire planet pays the price. That's a strong reason to exercise caution.

The scientists themselves don't tend to tangle themselves in policy. They've been trying to be more vocal in this respect because their warnings of very real danger are being largely ignored by denialists.
 
"Top politician Barack Obama resigns from politics, admits Republican platform is a scam".
 
As a physics graduate myself... I completely agree.

.... I understand that Climatology is a very difficult science... too many variables, very difficult to actually test... They didn't know where lightening strikes came from until the last few years... It's a science where the hard stuff hasn't been done yet...we can't even accurately predict the weather, it's chaos. Real science happens in climatology, but it's a similar field to biology... it is not a fundamental science(By this term I mean for example it goes as Physics is the most fundamental science---than chemistry--->than Biology, The "Chemistry" and "Physics" of Climatology is largely un-pioneered ground because of the amount of variables, of course we know a lot... but we also don't know a lot.

It is a rarer thing to approach climatology from the ground up than from the top down. Top down scientists have less experience in math and less experience in the fields they derive from. Though, the same argument can be made visa versa...unfortunately we need a Phys-Bio-Chem-Climatologist that is not people bribed and motivated by the climate change crew... and that is very rare.

Interesting, you think because you have what a B.S. in Physics that gives you the credentials to just invalidate another branch of science that you have no specific education or work experience in?
 
Not even slightly true.

In science, the money is funding research without regard to conclusion.

The guys who write conclusions for the denialist believers are the only corrupt ones here.

Bingo, that's the way it's supposed to be. That's the problem though. Government grants to prove AGW is true are plentiful because AGW isn't about science. It's about taxes, money, power and influence. Belief if AGW has become a religion to some.

Don't misunderstand me. I think it's critical to study the climate. There is much we don't know and the science isn't settled.
 
As a physics graduate myself... I completely agree.

.... I understand that Climatology is a very difficult science... too many variables, very difficult to actually test... They didn't know where lightening strikes came from until the last few years... It's a science where the hard stuff hasn't been done yet...we can't even accurately predict the weather, it's chaos. Real science happens in climatology, but it's a similar field to biology... it is not a fundamental science(By this term I mean for example it goes as Physics is the most fundamental science---than chemistry--->than Biology, The "Chemistry" and "Physics" of Climatology is largely un-pioneered ground because of the amount of variables, of course we know a lot... but we also don't know a lot.

It is a rarer thing to approach climatology from the ground up than from the top down. Top down scientists have less experience in math and less experience in the fields they derive from. Though, the same argument can be made visa versa...unfortunately we need a Phys-Bio-Chem-Climatologist that is not people bribed and motivated by the climate change crew... and that is very rare.

physicists.png
 
Back
Top Bottom