- Posts: 9276
- Thank you received: 31
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
- The Viking
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
12 Oct 2010 07:25 #11
by The Viking
Replied by The Viking on topic Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
There are over 31,000 sicentists who signed a letter stating that man made global warming is not true. And over 9000 of them have PHD's. Most all of the educated world has finally figured out that this whole thing is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mf1b_y8rxE
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... rming.html
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mf1b_y8rxE
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... rming.html
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MountainRoadCrew
-
- Mountain Advisor
-
Less
More
- Posts: 294
- Thank you received: 3
12 Oct 2010 08:43 #12
by MountainRoadCrew
Replied by MountainRoadCrew on topic Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Merged 2 threads regarding the resignation of the scientist into one.
Thanks
285 Road Crew
Thanks
285 Road Crew
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ScienceChic
-
- Mountain Champion
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15740
- Thank you received: 319
12 Oct 2010 09:08 #13
by ScienceChic
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
My big reply is on the previous page (Heartless - LOL!). Had insomnia last night...
Viking - the 31,000 scientists letter signing was debunked long ago. Take your pick of the analyses below.
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global- ... propaganda
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise for those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%. When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to Dermatologist, I go to a Cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in Medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/0 ... -be-wrong/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... d_Medicine
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -malarkey/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/ ... were-real/
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... tition.php
January 26, 2010
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2 ... cientists/
Viking - the 31,000 scientists letter signing was debunked long ago. Take your pick of the analyses below.
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global- ... propaganda
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise for those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%. When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to Dermatologist, I go to a Cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in Medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/0 ... -be-wrong/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... d_Medicine
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -malarkey/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/ ... were-real/
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... tition.php
January 26, 2010
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2 ... cientists/
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- pineinthegrass
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2836
- Thank you received: 25
12 Oct 2010 18:52 #14
by pineinthegrass
Replied by pineinthegrass on topic Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Hal Lewis' letter was an interesting read.
I think he made some interesting points about the practices of the American Physical Society. But a lot of it was inside stuff and it's tough to make a call on it since I don't know anything about it, unless others speak up as well. But it's a lot easier to speak out and resign from a professional society when you are 87 vs. others who are younger and need to make a living. I can see a lot of what he said happening, but can't reach a conclusion.
I do think that he doesn't have a very open mind about climate change based on the two sources he cited (Montford and "ClimateGate"). It seems he reads and interprets material that supports his views. But a lot of us do that too.
I do suspect that the money does push the direction of a lot of research. As was mentioned before, there are also sources for research money on the other side of the issue from places like oil, gas, and mining companies. But any researcher accepting such funds would be ridiculed.
Anyway, if things are as bad in that society as he says, I'd still expect others to be speaking out. Maybe they are and I just haven't heard about it yet.
I think he made some interesting points about the practices of the American Physical Society. But a lot of it was inside stuff and it's tough to make a call on it since I don't know anything about it, unless others speak up as well. But it's a lot easier to speak out and resign from a professional society when you are 87 vs. others who are younger and need to make a living. I can see a lot of what he said happening, but can't reach a conclusion.
I do think that he doesn't have a very open mind about climate change based on the two sources he cited (Montford and "ClimateGate"). It seems he reads and interprets material that supports his views. But a lot of us do that too.
I do suspect that the money does push the direction of a lot of research. As was mentioned before, there are also sources for research money on the other side of the issue from places like oil, gas, and mining companies. But any researcher accepting such funds would be ridiculed.
Anyway, if things are as bad in that society as he says, I'd still expect others to be speaking out. Maybe they are and I just haven't heard about it yet.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- daisypusher
-
Topic Author
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 847
- Thank you received: 0
12 Oct 2010 19:18 #15
by daisypusher
I did notice that he did not state anything that supports the science that AGW is not the case. I believe he was more concerned about what he perceived as a breakdown of the Scientific Method and the integrity of research than AGW. Although it can be correctly stated that the Scientific Method is alive and well, what time frame will a "correction" take place given the current politicization of AGW? (Another AGW debate: why would a "correction" be necessary if all is true on the AGW front).
As time goes by, a person learns that many times there may seem to be no credible evidence when politics and the statements of players with an active interest are involved. That is the nature of politics. Any credible evidence has already been discounted - like the inappropriate emails, the inexcusable use of "WRONG" statistics when producing the hockey stick graph and all the outlandish doomsday scenarios of the IPCC report. These actions and more have been deemed of no importance in regards to AGW AND the credibility of those involved. I applaud his decision to resign. Who would want to do scientific research in that company?
Replied by daisypusher on topic Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Science Chic wrote: Just out of curiosity, did anyone look into his statements more closely? He certainly does give his reasons, but he states nothing that refutes the science of AGW. Actually, his comments seem to contradict one another on that point, and the rest are claims with no evidence to back them up, just opinions and conjectures.
I did notice that he did not state anything that supports the science that AGW is not the case. I believe he was more concerned about what he perceived as a breakdown of the Scientific Method and the integrity of research than AGW. Although it can be correctly stated that the Scientific Method is alive and well, what time frame will a "correction" take place given the current politicization of AGW? (Another AGW debate: why would a "correction" be necessary if all is true on the AGW front).
As time goes by, a person learns that many times there may seem to be no credible evidence when politics and the statements of players with an active interest are involved. That is the nature of politics. Any credible evidence has already been discounted - like the inappropriate emails, the inexcusable use of "WRONG" statistics when producing the hockey stick graph and all the outlandish doomsday scenarios of the IPCC report. These actions and more have been deemed of no importance in regards to AGW AND the credibility of those involved. I applaud his decision to resign. Who would want to do scientific research in that company?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.148 seconds
sponsors
