DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
As are your dumb and irrelevant quotes.
Emeritus Professor of Physics resigns over AGW FRAUD!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Bfgrn
New member
WOW, that sounds really bad. I guess I should start listening to you, because you KNOW...
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
This is true. Tell all your friends.
Bfgrn
New member
I don't have any friends, the 'authorities' won't allow it.
He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends.
Oscar Wilde
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This 98% figure is bandied about with gay abandon yet it is doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have just published the findings of a survey conducted with practicing climate scientists. The survey was conducted in 2008 with 379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes and dealt with their confidence in models, the IPCC and a variety of other topics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/#more-25352
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This 98% figure is bandied about with gay abandon yet it is doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have just published the findings of a survey conducted with practicing climate scientists. The survey was conducted in 2008 with 379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes and dealt with their confidence in models, the IPCC and a variety of other topics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/#more-25352
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Here is the response from the APS to Hal Lewis's resignation letter.
APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation
Posted on October 13, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Below is the press release (on the web here) from the American Physical Society, responding to the resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday, October 8th. APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I’ve gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in the document below. – Anthony Watts
October 12, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to 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.
Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation
Posted on October 13, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Below is the press release (on the web here) from the American Physical Society, responding to the resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday, October 8th. APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I’ve gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in the document below. – Anthony Watts
October 12, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to 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.
We know that the existing 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change was developed literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee had signed off on a more moderate Statement.
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.
We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:
http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html
…delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members, including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels. Driven largely by the ClimateGate revelations, the Petition asks that the Society conduct an independent study and assessment.
As for democratic membership participation in matters of science, consider the reaction to a grass roots outpouring of APS member opinion on the 2007 APS Statement http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/apscouncilors.cfm . “[APS Councilor] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically unsound statements.” Evidently physicists should be excluded from inputting on a question of physics; only “physics monks” are entitled to do so ex cathedra .
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.http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html
…delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members, including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels. Driven largely by the ClimateGate revelations, the Petition asks that the Society conduct an independent study and assessment.
As for democratic membership participation in matters of science, consider the reaction to a grass roots outpouring of APS member opinion on the 2007 APS Statement http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/apscouncilors.cfm . “[APS Councilor] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically unsound statements.” Evidently physicists should be excluded from inputting on a question of physics; only “physics monks” are entitled to do so ex cathedra .
The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions . Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS 2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while under consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP. The position had been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.
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.
This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies such as the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor’s office that the APS will continue to support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of taxpayer dollars into research that must support the alarmist credo. APS has been silent on the documented practice by some climate scientists aimed at preventing opposing research from being published.
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
This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.
- The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “dwell time.” If it is the conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the statement is wrong – by a lot.. The IPCC’s Bern carbon cycle model http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html gets a 16 year half life. If it is the time for the last molecule to get picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless. At the very least, the statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.
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.
This is much better than the 2007 APS Statement itself. However, the phrase “climate disruptions” is noteworthy because it is the new buzzword recently introduced by Science Advisor John Holdren http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/ , evidently enabling advocates to assign any unusual weather event to human causes. It is curious that that the APS press release happens to echo this new phrase.
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.”
What we have here is a bait and switch. No one is saying that the greenhouse effect itself is a scam. This passage seeks to transfer the ‘scam’ charge from its real target to the trivial. The fraud/scam is to be found in the continual drumbeat that the science is settled; that the effects will be catastrophic; that it requires draconian economic sacrifices to avoid; and that mandates and subsidies for rent-seeking corporations are justified.
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.
Never mind that the Panel on Public Affairs is chaired by an individual whose research funding stream (from BP) depends on continued global warming alarm. And you have to keep your eye on the pea. The dispute was not over the “significance” of the issue; it was over the alarmist nature of the statement. The addendum used more than five times the number of words to try to explain what the original statement meant. Not a good sign that they got it right the first time.
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.
Never mind that the Topical Group was proposed in a petition organized by a group of five members that included Dr. Lewis. Also, the Council has not yet approved a TG; therefore it is not in the process of being “organized.” It is being considered. No formal charter or bylaws have been set down. What we have here is the first attempt to co-opt the TG for PR purposes. This before it has even been approved by the APS Council.
Read the APS Climate Change Statement and Commentary: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.
APS should be very reluctant to draw public attention to this Statement, with its infamous phrase, “The evidence is incontrovertible,” despite the fact that nothing in science is ever incontrovertible.
About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.
Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org
Bfgrn
New member
I'm surprised tom. I didn't have you pegged as a flat earther. I sure hope the Koch brothers remember you in their will.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I am, for the most part, liberal on many issues but I happen to think that there is an awful lot of tosh written about AGW. Answer one question for me, why are investment banks so desperate to get carbon trading up and running? I have a rule of thumb that states if Goldman Sachs is involved in something then it is likely to be a scam.
Here is a quote that may help.
Goldman Sachs is the largest shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the second largest shareholder of ICE. In fact, Goldman Sachs put Al Gore into the carbon offset hedge fund business in 2003 when David Blood, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Assets Management, along with two other former Goldman Sachs officers, helped Gore establish his firm, General Investment Management, which focuses on “Sustainable Investing” by peddling carbon offsets.”
http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/carole113.htm
http://greenhellblog.com/2009/07/08/goldman-sachs-to-be-carbon-regulator/
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Go to youtube sometime when you have two hours and watch the full length "Obama Deception". That will tell you why.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I know why they are interested and I also know that Goldman Sachs are not fussy, they lobby anybody who will push their agenda.
Bfgrn
New member
I am a liberal. So I was born very inquisitive yet very skeptic. And one can always find reason for skepticism in ANY group, organization or publication. So tell me tom, do you have any skepticism of an article from NewsWithViews.com? I know I am.
Also as a liberal, I guard against my skepticism turning into cynicism. But it is impossible not to be very cynical of the corporate funded echo chamber that has been created to protect the worst polluters on the planet from laws, legislation and court rulings that would stop, reduce or slow down their raping of our planet. We saw this SAME echo chamber in action during the tobacco industries cancer fight. They paraded out all their payed for 'expert' to disclaim that cigarettes and cancer were linked.
Albert Camus said: "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."...you're on the wrong side this time tom...
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This is from the Green Hell blog, it is all too easy to rubbish a source but much harder to rubbish the content. When did Goldmans Sachs become one of the good guys?
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Olympia Snow (RINO-ME) have introduced a bill to make the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the sole regulator of the carbon market created by cap-and-trade legislation.
So does this mean that freebooting Goldman Sachs could be the de facto regulator of the carbon market?
Consider that:
- The current chairman of the CFTC is Gary Gensler, formerly of Goldman Sachs.
- Goldman Sachs is a part owner of the exchanges where carbon allowances would be traded.
- Goldman Sachs has spent millions of dollars lobbying for cap-and-trade legislation in anticipation of making billions of dollars at the expense taxpayers and consumers.
- Goldman has a special exemption from the CFTC to exceed the trading limits normally placed on commodity speculators. Not only was this exemption secret for 17 years, the CFTC recently had to ask Goldman for permission to release the letter to Congress!
- Goldman Sachs employees are heavy contributors to the Democratic Party giving it over $4.4. million in the last election. Barack Obama received more than $997,000, Feinstein received $24,250, and Snowe received $17,000 from Goldman. All-in-all, this could result in a pretty decent return-on-investment for Goldman.
Can you tell the difference between the CFTC and Goldman Sachs?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
And closed-minded about Conservatives to think we ain't.
Bfgrn
New member
WOW tom, there's a wise saying, when you're in a hole, stop digging. We went from news from the far right christian end timers, to Steve Milloy's world of tobacco.
Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.
Milloy runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, environmental radicalism and scare science among other topics.
Milloy the Lobbyist
Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organizations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran the National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding.[citation needed] NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.
NEPI was also associated with the Air Quality Standards Coalition (AQSC) which was devoted to weakening Clean Air laws. This organization took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label scientific findings that were detrimental to the large funding corporations as "junk." Milloy was one of its most effective lobbyists because he wrote well, and used humor.
Milloy joined Philip Morris's specialist-science/PR company APCO & Associates in 1992 as a consultant, working behind the scenes on a business venture known as "Issues Watch".[1] By this time, APCO had been taken over and become a part of the world-wide Grey Marketing organization, and so Milloy was able to use the international organization as a feed source for services to corporations who had international problems.[citation needed]
Issues Watch bulletins were only given out to paying customers, so Milloy started for APCO the "Junkscience.com" web site, which gave him an outlet to attack health and environmental activists, and scientists who published findings not supportive of his client's businesses. Like most good PR it mixes some good, general criticism of science and science-reporting, with some outright distorted and manipulative pieces.
The Junkscience web site was supposedly run by a pseudo-grassroots organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), organized by APCO for Philip Morris,[2] which initially paid ex-Governor Garrey Carruthers of New Mexico as a front.[3] Milloy actually ran it from the back-room, and issued the press releases. Then when Carruthers resigned, Milloy started to call himself "Director." Bonner Cohen -- who also worked for APCO -- became "President."[citation needed]
Initially all of this was funded by Philip Morris, but later PM broadened the focus to gather even more funding by garnering participation from energy, pharmaceutical, chemical companies. TASSC's funders include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers. [4]
TASSC was then exposed publicly as a fraud, and so Milloy established the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" to take over the running of the Junkscience.com web site.
Tobacco industry documents
* A 2003 "Tobacco Weekly" newsletter (a publication of the Tobacco Merchants Association) states,
Steven Milloy, author of JunkScience.com, also criticized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for claiming that 400,000 people die every year from alleged smoking-related illnesses, saying that studies linking smoking to heart disease are not entirely reliable. He pointed out that smokers have higher heart disease rates than non-smokers partly because smokers also tend to be people who do not exercise, have worse diets, avoid doctors and have less healthy lifestyles overall. (CNS News 8/1).[7]
Milloy was involved with R.J. Reynolds Project Breakthrough:
* An activity report created for R.J. Reynolds by the lobbying firm Powell Tate indicates Steve Milloy was involved in RJR's Project Breakthrough, an multi-year effort to link tobacco prevention to alcohol prohibition in the public mind. Milloy's junk science web site appears to have been part of, or used in this project. An item under the heading "Project Breakthrough" in the report states, "Reviewed and revised junk science Website including calls with Steve Milloy, researching and compiling Website visitor comments, and reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on Website."[8]
Milloy provided medical and political information service to British American Tobacco.
* For a number of years Milloy acted as an information source for British-American Tobacco. His relationship with Sharon Boyse, Director of BAT's Scientific Communications division (actually a PR division) began in the mid-1990s when he was running TASSC for Philip Morris, and seeking wider funding support from the tobacco industry.[9] Later it was formalized through the regular provision of abstracts and news about scientific research into smoking and health, and other addictive behaviors.[10][11]
This was further extended into the political sphere with his regular fax distribution of the "Issues Watch" newsletter.[12] which went out to most of the major tobacco companies by fax or e-mail.
sourcewatch
Bfgrn
New member
I have many theories about conservatives. But my favorite is:
Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.
Me
cancel2 2022
Canceled
What I find strange is that nowhere here is there any attempt to answer why Goldman Sachs is so desperate to get carbon trading up and running? Do you seriously think they give a shit about the environment?
They have been involved in just about every bubble in history. You know as well as I do that they will use carbon offsets to devise derivatives, in the same way that sub-prime mortgages were traded and look how well that turned out. It is another bubble waiting to burst.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Goldman Sachs is in it for the money, that's what they do. Some Liberals are in it for the money as well, but most of them are simply in it because it seeks to "punish" the evil corporations. And I suppose, there are some Flat Earthers like Bfgoon, who are in it because they really think their junk science is conclusive and if we don't do something, the whole Earth will be destroyed. It never occurs to these dimwits, that a single volcanic eruption, causes more climatic change than all of mankind for all of mankind's history. That a single solar sunspot cycle, can cause more fluctuation in temperature than man could ever hope to cause.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The old canard about volcanoes is exactly that, the amount of CO2 is minuscule compared to the total emissions. It doesn't help the argument to perpetuate myths.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638