"greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud "

[ArlJim78]

This letter is long, but I think it is one of the more important things to be written about the climate change/global warming fraud that I have ever seen. Go ahead and try to tell me that this emeritus professor is some dimwitted crackpot not able to grasp scientific principles.


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:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

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?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

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

Hal

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)

__________________________________________________ ___
:jump: The Science is Settled :jump: The Science is Settled:jump:

[Native Texan III]

The worst thing is that now when the scientists cry wolf no one listens and when they say things are actually OK, no one believes them. The last bastion of truth has joined the business, political and military world of lies, deceits and cover ups as essential techniques into how to be "successful". They surely all now put the "suck" into successful.

[Let's Roll]

Excellent post, Thank You !!
Someday soon I would like to see a criminal investigation into this fraud. I want to know who benefited financially and politically. We are looking at the tip of the iceberg, I want to see below the waterline on this issue.

[skate]

hat's way we have the-skate to make things straight.:cool:

[boxcar]

Ahhh...the guy is obviously a crackpot. He's burned out. He's delusional. Or someone on the Right bought him off. He was bribed to write that. (Have I missed anything? I'm sure if I have Mosty or 'cap will fill me in. :rolleyes: )

But seriously...thanks for posting this, Jim. For a very long time now, I have been saying that MONEY is behind this scam. The science establishment is bought and paid for. These sceintists are not going to bite the fingers that feed them. Ike had it right. (Wow, second time today...maybe I have missed my calling. :D ) These scientists are no different than any other human being. They put on their pants and skirts on the same way as the "unwashed masses". You toss enough money in front of someone, and their palms start itching, their eyes bulge and their little greedy hearts start pounding with excited anticipation of how they're going to spend it all. But in fairness to these scientists, the temptation to take the low moral road is even greater with them because the employment market is owned by only a select few and these scientists have the same basic needs as the rest of us. Government and various foundations with strong political ties and an equally strong political agenda are these scientists' employers. Not too many scientists found their jobs through newspaper employment ads.

The love of money is truly the root to all kinds of evil. We are seeing this evil unfold right before our very eyes. (And Mr. Hal Lewis had better beware of all the 1010 types out there, as well.)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The worst thing is that now when the scientists cry wolf no one listens and when they say things are actually OK, no one believes them. The last bastion of truth has joined the business, political and military world of lies, deceits and cover ups as essential techniques into how to be "successful". They surely all now put the "suck" into successful.

Nonsense! Let the people decide between truth and lies --who is right and who is wrong. But how can we, when the scam artists on the left only want to conceal this matter -- want to quash debate? This alone tells me their position and arguments are very weak, otherwise they'd be eager to bring the debate out into the light for the whole world to see. People who can argue from the position of strength need not fear or hide anything.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

We have an eighty seven year old retired physics professor, who didn't seem particularly "with it" in a 1986 interview I just read. He has no discernible credentials in climate studies. But you have given him the Gold Cup for knowledge in these matters. :bang:

As for the money conspiracy you and he put forth, to what purpose would anyone pay to prove global warming or climate change? On the other side of the coin, it is clear why someone would pay a scientist to refute the claims. The cost of preventing climate change would be immense to Oil companies, automobile manufacturers and energy companies to name a few.
Clearly these industries have a vested interest in discrediting the fact of climate chamge. Notice, I didn't say disproving and I did not say theory.

[mostpost]

Nonsense! Let the people decide between truth and lies --who is right and who is wrong. But how can we, when the scam artists on the left only want to conceal this matter -- want to quash debate? This alone tells me their position and arguments are very weak, otherwise they'd be eager to bring the debate out into the light for the whole world to see. People who can argue from the position of strength need not fear or hide anything.

Boxcar
You have got to be kidding me!!! Most people couldn't tell the difference between the scientific method and a marshmallow sundae. And that includes
you.

[johnhannibalsmith]

[B]
You have got to be kidding me!!! Most people couldn't tell the difference between the scientific method and a marshmallow sundae. And that includes
you.

Are you writing for Bill Maher now?

[Tom]

There is big money in the GW fraud.

BIG $$$$

[boxcar]

We have an eighty seven year old retired physics professor, who didn't seem particularly "with it" in a 1986 interview I just read. He has no discernible credentials in climate studies. But you have given him the Gold Cup for knowledge in these matters. :bang:

But he is very knowledgeable and has worked within the science establishment for decades. So, he has an excellent working knowledge of how things work within the science community.

As for the money conspiracy you and he put forth, to what purpose would anyone pay to prove global warming or climate change?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Are you that hopelessly naive!? Seriously! The kool-aid has finally poisoned the few brain cells you ever had? Is your head so far up Big Gov's rear end that you can't even begin to imagine what the motives would be for aggressively promoting man-made global warming? How about untold billions in new tax revenue, for starters? Talk about a tax windfall! How about more government control over individual's lives for political purposes? And how about that control be focused on people's energy consumption? And how about favors and preferences and allowances being made, through complex laws, to people who support government policies, while conversely for those who oppose such policies they would be severely penalized, etc., etc.? A power and money-hungry state stands to gain a great deal through this scam. Why in the world do you think this scheme was hatched by commies in the first place? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[Tom]

RrodOi72Huo&feature=related

[hcap]

[B]
You have got to be kidding me!!! Most people couldn't tell the difference between the scientific method and a marshmallow sundae. And that includes
you.Here's an example if the level of the PA GW skeptics scientific analysis.

I wonder if Glenn Beck produced this strikingly accurate documentary debunking GW ??

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kRq4_uxMxuE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kRq4_uxMxuE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Pell Mell]

Not to mention the billions Gore is hoping to make trading carbon credits! :bang:

[hcap]

Another scientific agency in on the ul pseudoscientific 'conspiracy" and fraud?

"The nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences last reviewed the data this spring, it concluded: “A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

Reports Address Some Concerns Raised in Current E-mail Controversy

December 3, 2009 -- Past controversies over historical temperature trends and access to research data have resurfaced amid a stir over old e-mail exchanges among climate scientists that were stolen from a university in the U.K. Two National Research Council reports in particular address these issues. Guiding principles for maintaining the integrity and accessibility of research data were recommended in a report released earlier this year, and a 2006 report examined how much confidence could be placed in historical surface temperature reconstructions. [more]

Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age recommends that researchers -- both publicly and privately funded -- make the data and methods underlying their reported results public in a timely manner, except in unusual cases where there is a compelling reason not to do so. In such cases, researchers should explain why data are being withheld. But the default position should be to share data -- a practice that allows conclusions to be verified, contributes to further scientific advances, and permits the development of beneficial goods and services.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20091203.html

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years examined what tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" can tell us about the planet's temperature record, and in particular how much confidence could be placed in a graph that became known as the "hockey stick," which depicted a steep rise in temperatures after a 1,000-year period in the last few decades of the 20th century. The committee that wrote the report found sufficient evidence to say with a high level of confidence that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes.<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FxaWVlzgkX4&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FxaWVlzgkX4&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Tom]

hcap, if GW is the big deal you claim it to be, why are our leaders NOT leading by example. Gore and Pelosi are two of he biggest violators. Should you not be calling for their hides for killing your planet? How can anyone take either of these two seriously when they totally ignore their responsibility?

Serious.

[HUSKER55]

GW is the concept used by those crooks in DC to rape the taxpayer.

The trouble is not here. The real crime is else where and those crooks will win becuse no one else is there to stop them.

[boxcar]

Another scientific agency in on the ul pseudoscientific 'conspiracy" and fraud?

What part of "The love of money is the root of all evil", don't you understand?
Wherever there are large sums of money involved or something as fundamental as livelihoods, then conspiracy and fraud are certainly real possibilities.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

hcap, if GW is the big deal you claim it to be, why are our leaders NOT leading by example. Gore and Pelosi are two of he biggest violators. Should you not be calling for their hides for killing your planet? How can anyone take either of these two seriously when they totally ignore their responsibility?

Serious.
Industry is the biggest violator. Ten companies which supply electricity are responsible for almost 2 billion tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere every year. That is 2/3 of the total and that is just those ten companies. It does not include other power companies. It does not include oil companies. It does not include manufacturing companies. It does not include Mining companies.
I would guess that Gore's or Pelosi's share of blame for pollution is on the order of one billionth of one percent.
Put the blame where it belongs and stop being a fool.

[mostpost]

What part of "The love of money is the root of all evil", don't you understand?
Wherever there are large sums of money involved or something as fundamental as livelihoods, then conspiracy and fraud are certainly real possibilities.

Boxcar
What part of "the oil companies are lying to you" don't you understand. How can you be so fixated on the relatively small amounts of money that are being awarded to scientists, while ignoring the Billions that are being spend by Exxon Mobile and BP and others to try to disprove it. If they are spending that much to fight GW, Or rather to fight to disprove it, then they are surely aware of what it would cost if they had to take measures to stop it.
Tell me what, in their history, leads you to believe they would not lie to keep from spending that money.
The objective opinion, the one presented by objective scientists with a relatively small financial stake is that GW exists and it is primarily caused by man.
The subjective opinion, the one presented by companies with an enormous financial stake is that it is a fraud. The real fraud is in the psuedoscience presented by those companies.

[cj's dad]

are all of these energy suppliers located in the USA ??

China, Turkey, Greece, India, Pakistan etc..... are abominations when it comes to pollution which YOU BELIEVE causes global warming !!

Wake up and look at the big picture !!

[boxcar]

What part of "the oil companies are lying to you" don't you understand. How can you be so fixated on the relatively small amounts of money that are being awarded to scientists, while ignoring the Billions that are being spend by Exxon Mobile and BP and others to try to disprove it.

It's no small 'taters to scientists. The bread on their tables, the roofs over their heads, the clothes they wear all depend on money they receive from the state and various foundations. They can be bought and paid for just like anyone else.

And how come you're not fixated on the irrefutable fact that the government doesn't want to debate this extremely issue publicly -- in the light of day -- with scientists on both sides of the issue (yeah...there are actually two sides :bang: :bang: ) laying out their arguments for all to hear and see? Instead, the government wants to have us think the matter is settled. Case is closed. Unanimous consensus has been reached. Verdict has been rendered. Debate is unnecessary. And anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot -- who probably deserves to be splattered all over some wall.

I could see that working for the kool-aid drinkers, Mr. Mosty, but it doesn't work for me.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

are all of these energy suppliers located in the USA ??

China, Turkey, Greece, India, Pakistan etc..... are abominations when it comes to pollution which YOU BELIEVE causes global warming !!

Wake up and look at the big picture !!
There's not much we can do about China etc. We can control what we do.

[bigmack]

GW exists and it is primarily caused by man.
Speaking of fools, could you point us to where we could find definitive evidence of this? We've been axing for it for years.

Tell us you have an inside track on this so we can put it to bed. :rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

you didn't expect that a scientist with seven decades of experience was going to sway mosty did you? no way, proceed directly to the remedy without even understanding the problem. we shouldn't doubt the judgement of folks just because they stand to realize a windfall. hilarious how are people are so willingly duped.

[mostpost]

It's no small 'taters to scientists. The bread on their tables, the roofs over their heads, the clothes they wear all depend on money they receive from the state and various foundations. They can be bought and paid for just like anyone else.

And how come you're not fixated on the irrefutable fact that the government doesn't want to debate this extremely issue publicly -- in the light of day -- with scientists on both sides of the issue (yeah...there are actually two sides :bang: :bang: ) laying out their arguments for all to hear and see? Instead, the government wants to have us think the matter is settled. Case is closed. Unanimous consensus has been reached. Verdict has been rendered. Debate is unnecessary. And anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot -- who probably deserves to be splattered all over some wall.

I could see that working for the kool-aid drinkers, Mr. Mosty, but it doesn't work for me.

Boxcar
You really don't get it, do you? When the Federal Government or a legitimate foundation provides funding to a scientist, it doesn't say prove there is Global Warming and prove that it is caused by man. It says investigate the possibility of Global Warming and try to determine its cause(s). So the money the scientist receives does not depend on the answer he gives, it depends on
how well he proves that answer.

Allow me to refute your irrefutable fact. Google "Global Warming Doubt". !130,000 Hits. "Global Warming Scam 127,000 hits. Global Warming Sceptics 130,000 hits. The sceptics have had ample opportunity to present their case. They have failed.

[mostpost]

Speaking of fools, could you point us to where we could find definitive evidence of this? We've been axing for it for years.

Tell us you have an inside track on this so we can put it to bed. :rolleyes:
I would not waste my time. You seem so happy in your ignorance. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[bigmack]

I would not waste my time.
Another cowardly dolt who, 'doesn't have the time.' :lol:

You're as gullible as Al G. Don't you get it, Dummy? Global warming & cooling has occurred for millions of years. Point us to one article that shows irrefutable proof that man causes warming.

Put-up or shut-up, Ignoramus.

The oceans contribute 37,400 billion tons of CO2
The atomosphere contribute 720 billion of CO2
Humans contribute 6 billion tons of CO2

What percentage of 38120 is 6? :D

And that's just a start.

[mostpost]

Another cowardly dolt who, 'doesn't have the time.' :lol:

You're as gullible as Al G. Don't you get it, Dummy? Global warming & cooling has occurred for millions of years. Point us to one article that shows irrefutable proof that man causes warming.

Put-up or shut-up, Ignoramus.

The oceans contribute 37,400 billion tons of CO2
The atomosphere contribute 720 billion of CO2
Humans contribute 6 billion tons of CO2

What percentage of 38120 is 6? :D

And that's just a start.
Where do you get your figures? Could it have been here?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Excerpt:
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." (Jeff Id)

You really should have read the whole article. :lol: :lol:
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).



Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

The pertinent question is not what percentage of 38120B is 6B. The question is how much of an increase is that 6B as compared to the pre-industrial era. The answer is that it is an increase of one third. A very large increase.

[bigmack]

The question is how much of an increase is that 6B as compared to the pre-industrial era. The answer is that it is an increase of one third. A very large increase.
:lol: Show us how man affects climate. We're waiting & have been for years.

Come on, Postman, show us how ignorant we is.

[boxcar]

You really don't get it, do you? When the Federal Government or a legitimate foundation provides funding to a scientist, it doesn't say prove there is Global Warming and prove that it is caused by man. It says investigate the possibility of Global Warming and try to determine its cause(s). So the money the scientist receives does not depend on the answer he gives, it depends on
how well he proves that answer.

Mr. Naive, you're ASSuming that! And you know what they say about people who ASSume, right? You're assuming that there are no strings attached to those grants. That's a huge assumption.

Allow me to refute your irrefutable fact. Google "Global Warming Doubt". !130,000 Hits. "Global Warming Scam 127,000 hits. Global Warming Sceptics 130,000 hits. The sceptics have had ample opportunity to present their case. They have failed.

No, they haven't debated it in the open. Neither the government or the U.N. will let them. When did libs/progressives/socialists/commies suddenly become enamored with transparency and honesty? :rolleyes: Heck, go back and re-read Lewis' article! :bang:

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

The pertinent question is not what percentage of 38120B is 6B. The question is how much of an increase is that 6B as compared to the pre-industrial era. The answer is that it is an increase of one third. A very large increase.
Did the oceans contribute zero in the pre-industrial years?

[newtothegame]

We have an eighty seven year old retired physics professor, who didn't seem particularly "with it" in a 1986 interview I just read. He has no discernible credentials in climate studies. But you have given him the Gold Cup for knowledge in these matters. :bang:

As for the money conspiracy you and he put forth, to what purpose would anyone pay to prove global warming or climate change? On the other side of the coin, it is clear why someone would pay a scientist to refute the claims. The cost of preventing climate change would be immense to Oil companies, automobile manufacturers and energy companies to name a few.
Clearly these industries have a vested interest in discrediting the fact of climate chamge. Notice, I didn't say disproving and I did not say theory.

I apologize in advance if this was posted...but here Mosty...maybe this will help answer your above question....

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan

WASHINGTON -- A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000.

The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla is a California startup focusing on all-electric vehicles, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns.

The awards to Fisker and Tesla have prompted concern from companies that have had their bids for loans rejected, and criticism from groups that question why vehicles aimed at the wealthiest customers are getting loans subsidized by taxpayers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html

[Mike at A+]

Hey, with the inflation Obama's about to cause, that $89K may not be a bad deal after all.

[newtothegame]

And, there are many more articles on gore , his friends, and their investments.....

May I suggest...google??? :lol:

[bigmack]

I would not waste my time. You seem so happy in your ignorance.
Let's go. Where's it at? Show us how man affects climate.

Don't tell me you're as much of a punk and a phony as Al G?

You callin' people ignorant and not being able to back it up. What a clown you are.

[hcap]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-from.pdf

The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Joint statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment.

[fast4522]

Perhaps on November 2 we can end cap and trade for the rest of Hcaps life.

[ArlJim78]

Cap and Trade would have no effect on climate change. its simply a golden goose for revenue. the professor is right, it's the biggest flim-flam in human history.

[Mike at A+]

A "consensus", scientific or otherwise, doesn't mean squat. There's a consensus in every horse race. It's called the favorite. They win about one out of every three times.

[bigmack]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-from.pdf

The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
:lol: The need to believe is so strong you're completely blind.

[delayjf]

All this based on flawed computer models, which have also been predicting horrific hurricanes for the past few years - so where are they??? And if these same scientist cannot accurately predict weather patterns one year out, why should I have any faith in their ability to predict climate change?

Did they ever find all that weather data that was supposedly lost?

This is a progressive power play that has been exposed - cap and trade is doomed. If you could not get it passed with this Congress there is no way you will get it passed after the elections.

[Tom]

One year out?
Most can't get it right one day out!

How about this......"change of global warming," or "partly warming!" :lol:

If we ever have another eclipse, I fear hcap and mostie will panic!

[boxcar]

A "consensus", scientific or otherwise, doesn't mean squat. There's a consensus in every horse race. It's called the favorite. They win about one out of every three times.


:lol: :lol: You nearly caused a coffee spill. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Also, you greenies out there (including any 1010 types :D ), Tom and I are still waiting to know where do we have to set our planet's thermostat to keep it at perfect temperature? When someone says it's "too warm" or it's "too cold", then this implies that the person knows what the ideal temp is, otherwise such statements are meaningless. Therefore, please advise ASAP what the ideal temp is so that we can have NASA or the EPA or whoever set the planet's thermostat.

Thanks in advance,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

Cap and Trade would have no effect on climate change. its simply a golden goose for revenue. the professor is right, it's the biggest flim-flam in human history.

And it's soooooo obvious to anyone not drunk on the kool-aid. It's a scam to lay a huge guilt trip on people and bilk us out of untold billions, if not trillions of dollars in tax money. I mean what is so hard to understand about this? Government doesn't produce anything. Government doesn't generate any wealth. In order for government to survive and to GROW, GROW, GROW and GROW some more, it must increase its revenue. And the only way to do that is tax, tax, tax, tax, tax....well...I'm sure a lot of us get the picture.

By trying to lay a huge guilt trip on taxpayers, the state hopes to mitigate the stiff opposition and counter arguments sure to come from all critical thinkers. It must try to do this by dividing and conquering -- the commonly used strategy. The state needs to get a large number of sheeple in its corner -- sheeple like Mosty, 'cap, NJ, Secretariat (has he fallen off the planet?), 46er (gosh...I almost miss him), etc., etc. to propagate the Gospel of Environmentalism and get "unwashed masses" to see the "light" -- at just about any cost (see 1010 videos).

It has often been said that Environmentalism is the new New Agey-type religion. And there's a lot of truth to that. But I think it's more than this, too. Environmentalism is nothing less than newly packaged Communism. It's Communism all dressed up to appeal to people through the emotional mechanism of guilt. The main reason I say this is because Environmentalism and Communism share an ARCH ENEMY. Greenies, what or who is the ARCH ENEMY of these two ideologies? What does Environmentalism and Communism have in common? C'mon, greenies, put your little thinkin' beanies on and come up with the answer. Show us all how bright you can be. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-from.pdf

The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Joint statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Here you have a statement by eighteen different organizations representing many aspects of the scientific community. On the other side you have a letter from a retired professor of physics with no experience in the field of climate research. How could you possibly believe those eighteen organizations? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Don't you know they are all part of the diabolical plot to steal our freedom and raise our taxes? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Our only hope is to listen to a man who is obviously feeling insulted that no one is listening to his opinion on matters of which he has no knowledge or expertise. :rolleyes:
BigMack is offended because I called him ignorant. But he is. Not stupid, ignorant. Stupid is when you lack the ability to understand something. Ignorant is when you have the ability but choose not to use it.

[mostpost]

Did the oceans contribute zero in the pre-industrial years?
The Oceans contribute the same now as they did then. (Within a few % points) The atmosphere contributes the same now as it did then. (Again allowing for natural variation) The point is that these sources are in balance. A delicate balance. The balance occured naturally over millenia and provides the proper atmosphere for life as it now exists.
What we have done is introduce a new source of carbon; carbon produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The balance has been disrupted. The natural cycle can no longer proceed has it has been.

[Mike at A+]

The Oceans contribute the same now as they did then. (Within a few % points) The atmosphere contributes the same now as it did then. (Again allowing for natural variation) The point is that these sources are in balance. A delicate balance. The balance occured naturally over millenia and provides the proper atmosphere for life as it now exists.
What we have done is introduce a new source of carbon; carbon produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The balance has been disrupted. The natural cycle can no longer proceed has it has been.
Then your original statement (the one I responded to) ...

The pertinent question is not what percentage of 38120B is 6B. The question is how much of an increase is that 6B as compared to the pre-industrial era. The answer is that it is an increase of one third. A very large increase.

cannot be true because that 38,120B must be part of the denominator. For 6B to represent a 1/3rd. increase, the denominator (oceans plus atmosphere) has to be 18B. 6B compared to 38,120B is more like a mouse fart in the Superdome.

[Steve 'StatMan']

All this based on flawed computer models, which have also been predicting horrific hurricanes for the past few years - so where are they???

Those horrice hurricane predictions were all supposed to be George Bush's fault. Now that they haven't happened, and nothing signiciant has changed under Obama, they don't talk about it anymore - it was all about Bush Bashing, not about anything real involving the climate and more horrific hurricanes.

Biggest bunch of 2-faced bullshit bastards.

[boxcar]

Here you have a statement by eighteen different organizations representing many aspects of the scientific community. On the other side you have a letter from a retired professor of physics with no experience in the field of climate research.

But he has TONS of EXPERIENCE within the science community. Lots of experience with the inner workings of the science establishment. He never claimed that he was climate expert, did he? So, take your straw man and stick it in your ear.

Boxcar
P.S. You're working on that answer to my question regarding the common enemy of Communism and Environmentalism, right? :lol:

[mostpost]

But he has TONS of EXPERIENCE within the science community. Lots of experience with the inner workings of the science establishment. He never claimed that he was climate expert, did he? So, take your straw man and stick it in your ear.

Boxcar
P.S. You're working on that answer to my question regarding the common enemy of Communism and Environmentalism, right? :lol:
No, I'm not. Don't care!!!!

[boxcar]

[/B]
No, I'm not. Don't care!!!!

Not surprised. You're such a pathetic coward. Continue to graze with the rest of the sheeple and wash it all down with the kool-aid. I hear it aids in the digestion process. :D

Boxcar

[bigmack]

BigMack is offended because I called him ignorant
You've got the wrong guy. I don't give a rats keister what you call me.

Here's the dealio. You're coming into this debate late. You don't know that the rest of the world has been asking for this evidence of man causing climate change. You could be a real hero to the world if you could gather that data for us all. Think of the accolades bestowed on you.

Until then you know nothing and simply post mumbo jumbo. That doesn't make you ignorant, it makes you a fool.

As hcap, you remain blinded by your want to believe. Equally, you claim others as ignorant while you lap-up a hypothesis without scintilla of evidence. We all know the globe has warming & cooling periods. Only real dumdum's fall for the idiocy of attributing climate change with the industrial revolution. It's so stupid, it's funny.

Go find that evidence now and bring it back for us. Otherwise, you remain a chump.

[boxcar]

Those horrice hurricane predictions were all supposed to be George Bush's fault. Now that they haven't happened, and nothing signiciant has changed under Obama, they don't talk about it anymore - it was all about Bush Bashing, not about anything real involving the climate and more horrific hurricanes.

Biggest bunch of 2-faced bullshit bastards.

Oh...this hurricane season was supposed to be the mother of all 'em. Yup...lots of named storms, but most of them blew out to see or did little or no damage on shore. And I don't think any hit the U.S. I'm sure the tree huggers are very upset over this hurricane season, thus far. They probably wish they had one of those 1010 push button devices for the atmosphere to stir things up a bit.

Boxcar

[hcap]

More on the world wide conspiracy started by by Al Gore, George Soros the Communist party and the dems

[YT=""]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NjmHMSv2Amk&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NjmHMSv2Amk&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Tom]

So hcap, I have been waiting for three years now. Have you ice-huggers come up with an ideal global temperature yet?

[DJofSD]

So hcap, I have been waiting for three years now. Have you ice-huggers come up with an ideal global temperature yet?
No, they're still looking for the globe's rectum.

[Tom]

I know where it is.....mmmm mmmm mmmmm!

[DJofSD]

I heard it was in Jersey somewhere.

[boxcar]

I heard it was in Jersey somewhere.

And probably growing cobwebs in a dead letter box in some post office.

Boxcar