Print 237 comment(s) - last by Frank Paolino.. on Nov 7 at 11:07 AM

Are scientists being duped into abandoning their morals and publishing false studies on warming for grant money? A prominent physicist claims so, in a powerful resignation letter to the world's second largest physics society.
"[T]he global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it... has corrupted so many scientists" -- Harold Lewis

In perhaps the biggest critique delivered against the current state of global warming research "consensus", since "climategate" at the University of East Anglia, a renowned physics professor has written a lengthy letter resigning from the American Physical Society and condemning the state of warming research.

The letter was penned by Harold Lewis, an Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and is addressed to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.  

Professor Lewis enjoyed a decorated career.  A World War II veteran, entering the world of academia upon his return home, Professor Lewis wrote multiple books and made valuable contributions to the fields of missile defense and nuclear power.  Recently, Professor Lewis took an interest to the topic of global warming research, as many of his physicist colleagues were becoming actively engaged in it.

What he found was alarming to him and in his resignation letter, he voices outrage and what he feels is a financially-motivated fraud that is corrupting his fellow scientists.  His following resignation letter was published, in its entirety, by the  Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which he became a member of late this year.  The GWPF is a UK think tank that takes a critical stance on proposed global warming legislation.

Professor Lewis writes:

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.

California meteorologist turned blogger Anthony Watts describes it as "a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door".  Whether you agree or disagree with the current state of global warming research, it's hard to argue with that assertion. 

Here we have a prominent researcher in one of the primary fields of global warming research -- physics -- putting his reputation on the line to challenge what he feels is clear and present wrongdoing.  

Even if you believe that mankind is causing warming, the fact that vast sums of money are being poured into research to prove and examine mankind's supposed contribution to warming is certainly troublesome.  After, all, as seen with politics and religion, the dollar is the almighty corrupter.  While many researchers that would be loathe to publish biased materials and potentially fraudulent materials for a grant, there's likely many that wouldn't be.

The APS is the world's second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By DEVGRU on 10/13/2010 4:12:14 PM , Rating: 5
A scientist with balls and a spine. Who would have thunk it?



By kyleb2112 on 10/13/2010 4:22:43 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, The Greatest Generation just can't stop being great. God help us when they're all gone, and we're left looking to ex-hippie Baby Boomers for "wisdom".

By FaceMaster on 10/13/2010 4:43:52 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, The Greatest Generation just can't stop being great. God help us when they're all gone, and we're left looking to ex-hippie Baby Boomers for "wisdom".

Bitter old person alert!

By DJ Brandon on 10/14/2010 2:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all... someone with a BRAIN =)

By FaceMaster on 10/13/2010 5:14:01 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, The Greatest Generation just can't stop being great. God help us when they're all gone, and we're left looking to ex-hippie Baby Boomers for "wisdom".

I see the youth of today and fear for the future of the world. They'll never be as clever, or as morally sound, or as old as we are. I went into a primary school the other day and some of them couldn't even write! What is the world coming to?

By FITCamaro on 10/13/2010 5:54:05 PM , Rating: 4
Why do we need to write when we can just type or text in incoherent quasi-English gibberish?

By FaceMaster on 10/13/2010 7:23:34 PM , Rating: 5
Why do we need to write when we can just type or text in incoherent quasi-English gibberish?

God, I'm going to hate the day that people like me die and younger people like you inherit the Earth. (Mainly because I'll be dead.)

By FITCamaro on 10/13/2010 8:21:09 PM , Rating: 5
I'm really not looking forward to my generation running things either.

By Samus on 10/14/2010 12:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
We are screwed.

By ninjaquick on 10/15/2010 6:38:51 PM , Rating: 2

By measly on 10/14/2010 6:35:57 PM , Rating: 4
Guess what the old guys were saying when you were young...

By JediJeb on 10/13/2010 7:14:07 PM , Rating: 4
I'm only in my 40s and I can see how much we are losing as that generation passes away. The thing I fear more than the "ex-hippie baby boomers" is the current youth's generation. So few of the youth today know anything about personal responsibility and integrity. We hired someone just out of highschool the other day to do simple data entry. They stayed until noon and never came back after lunch. Now I could understand if they decided it was boring but they called in and complained the job was too difficult.

By YashBudini on 10/13/2010 10:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
Did youth ever have a long term view of the consequences of their actions? Would it really have been better had they returned only to flip you the bird at the first opportunity?

I'm not criticising your view, I'm simply asking. Frankly I agree with what you're saying, though I'm not sure things used to be all that much better.

By YashBudini on 10/14/2010 12:56:21 PM , Rating: 3
Only the DT crowd could down rate a simple question.

Got thick skin?

By JediJeb on 10/14/2010 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 5
I guess the differences I see is because I grew up in a rural area where most of the work done was on farms. Most of my friends and I worked in things like packing hay and feed sacks and chopping out weeds from the time we were big enough to do that kind of work. Getting up at dawn and working until dark all summer just to raise enough money to buy something like a new jacket for school or stereo for our car made the hard work seem worth it. If I could have sat at a computer and entered data all day for the same amount I would have thought I was in heaven.

Makes you wonder what would happen today if kids had to work like that all summer just to be able to buy their first iPod. I'm sure some do, and those are probably going to be some of the best new hires out there.

By YashBudini on 10/14/2010 4:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have no doubt kids on a family farm would have a work ethic, but those already on easy street were busy establishing their uselessness.

By RussianSensation on 10/15/2010 1:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
While I feel sympathetic for you since you had to endure many years of difficult physical labour on a farm, I don't quite agree with your argument.

For example, if you leave something on your plate after dinner, it's perfectly acceptable in today's society \ to throw the excess food into the garbage. When food rots, it releases methane, a greenhouse gas which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says is 20 times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide (CO2).

If you met someone who survived the blockade of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) in WW2, they would most likely find that you are not appreciative of the food given to you and perhaps even consider you a wasteful member of society. Therefore, you should finish your food.

But perhaps the problem is not that you didn't finish your food??? Perhaps, you cooked (bought) too much food in the first place.

Now let's continue.

Just because you had performed difficult physical work at a farm, doesn't mean that a person should find data entry exciting. Let's think outside the box now. Perhaps the youth of today are different than your generation because we actually seek some meaning/learning in our work. In fact, we work extremely hard when we enjoy our work and when our opinion is at least heard. However, your generation often doesn't want to hear our opinion - you just want us to be slaves - you give us a job and expect us to just do it. We are not robots. We want to know the purpose for "killing" ourselves for you? Why what it is that we are doing is actually important? Is there some value which we deem as worth "sacrificing our personal time" for you? Perhaps the youth of today is just no longer satisfied with doing meaningless work in exchange for just money.

Your generation doesn't seem to understand that neither money nor the ability to just have a job are strong motivators for Generation Y. We seek fulfillment in our careers. I am sorry if that doesn't quite agree with your view. While I don't agree with the hired youth just walking out on his job, please be open minded about the big picture here - data entry is mind-numbing work, regardless if it's "easier than farm labour work". Maybe he was unaware he would be doing data entry when he accepted the job?

I am sorry that my generation is deemed as "too lazy" to perform little value-added work in exhange for just money as yours did for 10-20 years at the same company. Perhaps the youth of today is lazier, but that doesn't make them less smart or innovative because they won't accept mediocrity like our parents did.

By The Raven on 10/15/2010 1:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the youth of today is lazier, but that doesn't make them less smart or innovative because they won't accept mediocrity like our parents did.

I don't think it is as much accepting mediocrity than it is accepting reality. Society skews the reality and tells you that money brings you happiness. People like my Gpa understand that it is the relationships that you have is what brings you happiness. Society tells you that you can afford a huge house and a bunch of TV and a huge cable bill every month and continue to live in debt indefinitly and that will bring you hapiness.

Your generation doesn't seem to understand that neither money nor the ability to just have a job are strong motivators for Generation Y. We seek fulfillment in our careers.

At least for me, fulfillment is achieved at home when you provide a roof and food for your family and enjoy your lives together. It takes a job and money to do that. (Or just some hard work to live off the fat of the land)

I am a genXer and think that society is going down the tubes. I do however believe that people will wake up when it gets bad enough. For me it is already bad enough.

By FITCamaro on 10/14/2010 1:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
Data entry is too difficult? Ugh. I'm glad I was born in the early 80s. The later into the 80s you went, the lazier and dumber the kids got. Almost anyone born in the 90s is a complete loss in my opinion. And its not getting any better. I am terrified of when kids born in this decade (2000s) make it into the work force. Their boss will sign their name in cursive and the kids will be like "Is that Spanish or something?".

By kingius on 10/14/2010 5:06:19 AM , Rating: 1
How disrespectful.

I sincerely hope you run into this same attitude once you have done something worthwhile yourself, if you are even capable of that.

By Taft12 on 10/14/2010 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 3
This "greatest generation" meme is really overstated. If their generation was so great how could their offspring have turned out so poorly?

By batjohn on 10/14/2010 12:13:06 PM , Rating: 4
Because it says greatest and not perfect. Personally I think each generation gets worse because of parents not being allowed to properly discipline their children.

By poohbear on 10/14/2010 1:12:09 PM , Rating: 4
oh please EVERY generation complains about how the younger generation is lazy and inept. This is NOTHING new. My great grandfather complained about my grandfather, he complained about my father, and my father complained about me, and im sure i'll complain about my kids and grand kids. seriously, get over yourselves.

By FITCamaro on 10/14/2010 2:00:39 PM , Rating: 4
Generations until the 90s disciplined kids. Now people are taught not to and that you just need to talk to your kids and they'll do what you want.

No. My parents tried talking. As does every parent. What gets a kid to listen is beating their @ss or at least the believed threat of doing so. Which requires doing it every now and then. Threatening to send them to their room is like a reward.

And for you hippies, "beating" means spanking.

By Anoxanmore on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By JediJeb on 10/14/2010 2:34:28 PM , Rating: 5
Well my IQ was tested when I was in 6th grade and was around 120, but I can tell you without a few spankings growing up I would have turned out worse for sure. I obeyed because I knew what could happen if I didn't, and a time out for me would have done nothing since my imagination was very active and I could have just sat there and entertained myself with my thoughts. Every child is different, but most respond well to a balance of both negative and positive reenforcements. Rewards for doing good only go so far if there is no punishment for doing bad.

If scolding or spanking a child is going to scar them for life as some therapists say it will, then there is something wrong with that child already. I talk to people who grew up in places like Bosnia and Iraq during the worst times there and they are perfectly normal. But I worry that if most of the children here in the US had to experience that, they would literaly fall apart because they lack the mental fortitude to deal with such stresses. Just like if you sequestered a child from all forms of germs their entire childhood they would have a weak immune system as adults, I believe that if you try to over protect them from emotional stress their entire childhood they will have a weak character as adults. Let them win and let them lose but teach them to do both well and you will raise strong children.

By Anoxanmore on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By bldckstark on 10/14/2010 5:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
So what you are saying is that we should beat the dumb ones?

By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2010 6:02:49 PM , Rating: 3
The smarter our children become and they are becoming more intelligent, the less physical negative reinforcement is needed.

I disagree. Children, regardless of IQ, lack emotional maturity. The root cause of most parent/child issues. Children are notorious for constantly pushing their boundaries and challenging the will of their parents. As you grow older, it's natural to question the authority of another over you. It's human nature.

Children understand right from wrong at a very early age, provided you aren't a horrible parent. They just don't care. They purposely or instinctively exploit this and put themselves in situations where you must constantly exert your dominance over them as a parent. They are relentless. They seek to wear you down until you're a shade of your former self and you become tired and lax, then discipline goes by the wayside.

That's why you have to beat them. Sure, it's a test of wills. But they lack the emotional maturity to be engaged on an intellectual level. Mind games and reverse physiology only works for so long, then they see right through you. Like you said, they are smart little buggers!

By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2010 6:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
edit: Psychology

By Anoxanmore on 10/15/2010 8:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
Not all children lack emotional maturity. That comes with intelligence as part of the human process.

I do find it amusing you think children are attacking the parent when if their parent had been strong to begin with the attack would never happen. This has to do with the intelligence of the child, directly.

Beating a child of higher than normal intellect doesn't work, this has been proven time and time again. The slower children will require a physical negative reinforcement to cement the idea that touching the stove is wrong, amongst other things. Meanwhile the more intelligent child will place their hand near it feel the heat and as it gets uncomfortable they won't touch it.

By Kurz on 10/15/2010 10:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
All children lack the emotional Maturity.
The human mind is a clean slate it doesn't have the mechanisms in place to be mature. The child has wants and needs and honestly sometimes they doesn't know what they want.

Though the child may have the genetic ability to learn faster than most children their age. Other than that all children are the same.

IQ of 120 here a little better than most still I touched the stove, fell down stairs, shocked myself while unpluging a toaster. All mistakes though I don't make those mistakes anymore. Once is usually enough for me. Though I did learn language a little later than most kids.

By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2010 6:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well you have to understand Anoxanmore is a woman, so she's viewing this from the eyes of a mothering coddling nurturing being.

The slower children will require a physical negative reinforcement to cement the idea that touching the stove is wrong, amongst other things. Meanwhile the more intelligent child will place their hand near it feel the heat and as it gets uncomfortable they won't touch it.

Not sure I can go with this. Responses to stimulation and pain are subconscious and instinctual. You're making it seem like a function of intelligence. If I pop a balloon in your hand, even though you KNOW it can't hurt, you will instinctively flinch and pull your hand away.

And, of course, when I said "beat" I was being comical :D

By cjohnson2136 on 10/15/2010 11:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
I do agree with you about the spankings. What my parents did for me and my brother was they talked and talked. Until one day if we were just horrible my mom would give my step-dad a sign to just whale on us. When my brother was 12 he did that while in the car. Step-dad got the signal whipped the car off the road pulled his @$$ out of the car and slammed him up against. He never acted out again. Same thing happened to me. I am one of those 90's kids. I was born in 89'. I do believe in one or two good hits to knock your kids off that high pedstal they get on when they get close to being a teen. But I do believe half this generation is lazy and the other half are very hard working but they want something they enjoy. I am a college student interning as a sql programmer. I hate my job but I work it to provide for my wife. Given the first chance I would quit because I see no point in my job it is very redundent. But if I get a job were I am actually programming applications I beleive I would love it.

I think a combination of the old and the new need to be combined. It is my hope that my generation will take a lesson from the "greatest generation" and combined their ideas with some more modern ones. As was stated before every generation says how worthless the new one is. Imagine what the parents of the flappers said in the 20s, I think flappers would 20s. But you know what I mean. There will always be a mix of lazy and hard working in every generation. You can not condem a generation because of stereotype.

By Schrag4 on 10/14/10, Rating: 0
By edge929 on 10/14/2010 5:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
My aunt tries that "time out" BS with my 7 year old cousin and she just can't figure out why it doesn't work. I can't help but laugh.

I got my @ss beaten growing up and looking back on it, I'm glad my parents did so. God knows I would have turned out to be a lazy, non-contributing member of society.

By Anoxanmore on 10/14/2010 1:13:03 PM , Rating: 1
Now that is funny the people who were parents after WWII were allowed to discipline their children, as can parents still and are able to do.

This G.O.D. (Good Ol' Days) is present in every generation as it gets older, and the younger generation is just as sick of hearing about it as the previous generation was.

By surt on 10/14/2010 1:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
The real truth is that every generation gets better. Every last one has been better than the one before. Human history is the story of progress. The only exception might have been in the dark ages, and that was more the fault of sickness than of that generation. Your children are better than you. Get over it.

By FITCamaro on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By Anoxanmore on 10/14/2010 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 1
Whee lets pick random selection of children because "inner city" kids make up the majority of the children right?

You are very skilled at using logical fallacies, I'll give you that.

On the whole children are much better than they were the previous generation and they will be much better than the next generation as well. It will keep going that way until the planet stops, or we all die of evil, robot, pirate, nazis who are also zombies.

By callmeroy on 10/14/2010 3:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
First lets all stop talking as if what we state are facts...its our perceptions based on life experiences and our opinions.

Now that that's out of the way....

Based on my life experiences and opinion -- kids of today are absolutely 100% "you must be friggin blind if you can't see it" lazier and more disrespectful than the previous generation. That's friggin obvious as day light to me.

We can each probably state our own theories on why this I'll just point out what I think are the "big" reasons...

1) Kids emulate their parents, whether any "cool" kid wants to admit it or not...its true. If your parents are lazy bums, or fat slobs you'll probably be one yourself or at the very least have a much higher risk of being one. Just like if you see your dad beat your mom -- chances are you'll probably show disrespect to the women in your life as well as have a high chance of cracking and being violent towards them.

Now keep with me...this ties into the next part....

2) Society's acceptance of young parents. Ever hear your mom and dad talk about back in "the old days" it was frowned upon to be in highschool and be pregnant...girls were literally scared to death of that. Well today our society looks at even 15 and 16 year old moms as no big deal...we say "oh that's awesome...congratulations!!". Well think back to when YOU were just a young kid of 15, 16 or even YOU think you were mature enough to raise a kid? Do you think you had the ability to HANDLE the stress and pressures put on you to be responsible to raise a kid?

Of course everything rule has exceptions, and some of you may have been 17 year old dad's or mom's...and did well, but on average I'd say that is NOT the case for most. This leads to lazy parenting, parents wanting to be friends first, not enforcing values / morals / common decency, etc...and have the case I pointed out in #1 above.

3) Kids are more and more anti-social today....thanks to technology. I know you guys are sick of hearing this because "older folks" say this all the time...but its said because IT's TRUE! "We" used to go outside and, hide and seek, ride our bikes through "unexplored trails", walk around the neighborhood to meet up with friends and do something together, etc. Today kids still socialize but its definitely to a lesser degree. A lot of time is playing computer / console games, watching TV or playing around with some gadget (texting on the cell phone, listening to music on an Ipod, surfing the web, etc.)...and all that stuff is fine ...I love playing computer games and listening to music...but I don't do it 40 hours a week either.

Bottomline: Kids don't know what "all things in moderation" means these days.

4) Disclipline....its mostly non-existent today. Some rare cases I see a parent actually disclipline their child (which doesn't almost mean touching them btw...) ...far more often then not ...the largest extent of "disclipline" I see are people putting their kids in "time out" or saying "don't do that please"....that's it. should your kid not to be disrespectul to another person, not to deface someone's property or whatever the "offense" might be....

Combine all this.....of course kids today will be lazy, foul-mouthed, mean spirited and disrespectful.....their parents are showing them how!

By callmeroy on 10/14/2010 3:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
ugh sorry for spelling errors...that's kind of lame how many their

By JediJeb on 10/14/2010 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
The real truth is that every generation gets better. Every last one has been better than the one before. Human history is the story of progress.

Depends on how you define better.

If our government were to begin to tax so heavily that you nolonger could do anything but survive and they began to tell you what you could and could not do, would you just grin and bear it or would you have the strength to join with others to overthrow it as the generation 200 years ago did when they founded the US?

If the world is again threatened by a power hungry dictator willing to use genocide on a global level to rule the whole world would you be willing to join the fight against him as those of the "greatest generation" did or just allow him to do as he wishes as long as you are not one who is sent to the death camp?

I believe each generation makes progress in many issues, especially technology, but does that make it better than the previous generation?

I have read about people like the owner of I believe it was Black & Decker who during the depression sacraficed most of his fortune to make sure he kept work available for as many of his workers as possible so they could keep their families fed. Some workers even worked for no pay because they wanted to keep the company going and even Decker's son was laid off to help protect others jobs and keep the company going. Would Steve Balmer be willing to do without his $80 million bonus this year if it would save the jobs of 10 of his workers? Each generation may be more successful and have a better standard of living, but are they truely better than the one that came before them?

Maybe we are not horribly worse than the generations that came before us, but I can't with any confidence say we are better either.

By Siki on 10/15/2010 8:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
I miss Hitler too. :(

By AEvangel on 10/18/2010 1:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that it's part of this "Greatest Generation" that is selling us out as well.

People should be judged solely on their actions and not some perceived association.

By kattanna on 10/13/2010 4:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
its happening more and more, thankfully.

and after seeing that 10:10 video and them blowing up the school kids its only going to continue

By Da W on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
By LongTimePCUser on 10/13/2010 4:53:30 PM , Rating: 4
The APS is the American Physical Society. Most of the English speaking physicists in the world belong to it and read its journals.

By SPOOFE on 10/13/2010 5:55:01 PM , Rating: 5
but does not say that climate change is or isn't happening.

Because the work of climate scientists can't tell us. It's become so twisted up in the Money/Power/Fame game that all the data and assertions should be held suspect. We're at zero. We've spent huge gobs of money to find out, all for nothing.

By michael67 on 10/14/2010 12:13:43 PM , Rating: 3
In Holland we have "De Algemene Rekenkamer" founded in 1477 and loosely translated "The General Auditors room" its a by the state paid institute that is independent from any party and checks things like every party's budget, ore what impact a law will have on society ore on the environment in the long run.

It also checks if the Nr's the government is using are right, when mail-gate came to light, some people ware wondering if the international Nr's we ware using ware right.
So all parties asked "De Algemene Rekenkamer" to do a audit on the Nr's of the UN and other institutes that ware used to make policy on global warming.

After some time they came back whit a rapport of the audit, conclusion was that there ware discrepancies in some of the Nr's, and some Nr's ware blown up a bid, but overall the indicators ware that humanity had a impact on the environment.
Further more none of the Nr's could bin taken for a fact and more research was needed, but indicators ware that the impact was between light/mild and a severe impact in the long run.

Ware mild impact would be easily handled by dutch society

But a severe impact on a low country like Holland whit 2/3 below see level, could make the delta works look like a small engineering project and would bring the country close to bankruptcy

The recommendation from the "De Algemene Rekenkamer" was to take the side of caution but don't bankrupt the country for it.

I personally am not sure if global warming is a totally human affect, it can also be a periodic jojo affect that bin going on for hundreds of millennial.

But on the other hand even if we have no impact, it still dose not hurt to try to be as mouths as possible on the safe side.

And actually lot of the measures can in the long run being beneficial, as oil is harder and harder to find and running out.

I have my 60s house totally re isolated 4y ago on a 10y free government loan, and i am now all ready almost break even on it whit the power-savings.
Do working offshore i did had almost no need to hire people to do it for me, and done 90% of the work my self, other people will need to hire people and the cost will rise but in colder climates will see there money back in 10y.

same whit saving lamps, and even more whit cars, my wife drive's a Lexus HS 250h (34 mpg) and the savings over the old GS300 (15 mpg) we have from the petrol station we can have easily have a extra holiday ore two.
The same go's for my Opel Corsa (56 mpg) city car, drive to the heliport and back once a month and the local driving

She drives a lot for work as a district manager (+/-30k miles/y), and we save on petrol together 4~5000 dollar a year, that is imho still real money that other wise would just go to the greedy oil companies i work for.

And yes petrol is expensive here, $8/gallon, but it got us to cut our petrol use in half, not to mansion the cars we drive now are also almost half in price, overall we save about $8k/y on just those damn cars.

Would i be driving a bigger car if i lived in the US?, yeah for sure, is it pain to have to drive a small, not really, do i miss a big, car sure a little, i still love big fast car's, how dose not?.
But when i feel the need for speed, i still have my classic Jaguar XJS V12 6L for fun.(dose 10 mpg if i am lucky ;-)

Bottom line is we can save a lot by changing habits, and spending money that save's us money in the long run, and that we save the environment as a bonus is nice to, is it not? :D

By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 4:52:58 PM , Rating: 1
I see a wall of gibberish, meandering text that says next to nothing.

spending money that save's us money in the long run, and that we save the environment as a bonus is nice to, is it not?

Those are nice assumptions, but you're still stupid for making them. There's no reason to believe the amount of money paid for global climate research will "save's[sic] us money in the long run" or that we're saving the environment. Wasted money is wasted money. We're not getting it back. We didn't spend it to avoid spending even more in the future. We spent it, and now we need to spend even MORE to overcome the crappy situation that the politicized and heavily biased AGW crowd has put us in. There is no net gain. There is only loss.

By The Raven on 10/15/2010 1:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
What a dbag. Can you not see that he is saving money by driving a more efficient car? How is he stupid? That is not a car fueled with unicorn dreams. It is fuled with petrol.

By michael67 on 10/14/2010 12:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
Damn in that long post i forgot to say what i wanted to say in the first, is he right i don't know, dose it hurt to hear a critical voice that makes people think again, hell no as long as the work get done professional, whit good peer's review it should be ok.

Do i trust in science yes, are the always right no, will they get yes, can it take a long time if science is wrong to get it right again yes sometimes a long time.

Can non scientific people come to a sound conclusion without a in-depth understanding how science works, no, they will be more bias to what is in there best interest's.
If 90% says yes it has a impact and 10% says no impact, those 10% will be seen as up to 50%, and they thin the scientific community is divided.

By drycrust3 on 10/14/2010 12:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
100% CORRECT! Mr Spoofe, not only are you 100% correct, and that alone should send shivers down the spines of every scientist, but won't. But also every scientist should be aware of why what you have said is correct, but obviously every scientifically minded person isn't.
Lewis rightly objects to the use of the word "incontrovertible" in a statement on something where the base data has been deliberately corrupted and the American Physical Society behaves like the puppet master is having a fit instead of realising they are going down the wrong path, a path that leads to a quagmire of rotten research and stagnant development.

By Lee Usa on 10/14/2010 1:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Professor Lewis denounces the "global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists" ... yet ignores the even larger sums coming from the fossil fuel corporations? Missing that elephant in the room throws his cognitive skills (and ethics) into question.

By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 4:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
yet ignores the even larger sums coming from the fossil fuel corporations?

What larger sums, and why shouldn't it be ignored? If the AGW story truly is bogus, it would only be morally correct to attack it.

By larsonre on 10/15/2010 1:05:59 PM , Rating: 3
or mabe he is cashing in on some of that corporate dough. Look for him to re-emerge as a spokesman for the oil industry.

By NanoTube1 on 10/13/2010 6:02:45 PM , Rating: 3
Dude, what do you think he is talking about? that this APS organization is helping to counter global warming OR that they are silencing anyone that is demanding a proper scientific investigation of the subject? come on... read it again bro.

By JediJeb on 10/13/2010 6:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Read it again, exactly what I was thinking. It even says in the first paragraph American Physical Society, second largest organization of physicist in the world.

By robert5c on 10/14/2010 1:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
Also he does denounce global warming, not just the organization or climate gate.

in the third paragraph he starts explaining his reason for disgust by say "It is of course, the global warming scam,"

so his position is that global warming is not happening, at least for the reasons currently theorized by the majority.

By sleepeeg3 on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By Callmeaslut on 10/14/2010 8:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
Shut out of the party? Along with 200 of his contemporaries?! And that from a list he had to generate himself after APS prevented him from using theirs.

By m1ldslide1 on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
By SPOOFE on 10/13/2010 5:56:42 PM , Rating: 5
I think you molest children. Why do you molest children? Stop molesting children, you child-molesting child molester.

By christojojo on 10/13/2010 6:05:58 PM , Rating: 5
Wow! Some scientist tells you climate change Is Real you believe it. One tells you it is Possibly a Fraud Possibly a Fraud and you call him homophobic? You sir, need help.

I do believe that Climatologist come from the geophysics branch of science thus ultimately from the physics branch. So basically you just want someone who bought into the climate change thing to jump off the money wagon and state it is a fraud. OF course then you will probably say that he/she was disgruntled. Then ask for a mailman to give your opinion.

By JediJeb on 10/13/2010 6:32:36 PM , Rating: 4
In my opinion, and it is just that, my opinion, Physicist study the actual science of what is happening, while most, not all but most, Climatologist are just using statistics to try to model what is happening with the climate.

Both have their role to play in the study of our global climate and how it behaves and Physicists know just as much about it as Climatologists do.

By iceonfire1 on 10/13/2010 7:18:12 PM , Rating: 3
Is this trolling? The average physics Ph.D student has an IQ of about 130. That's above 97% of people. This guy is a professor at the University of California, who just exposed himself to enormous criticism.
Whatever his reason, it's not because he is exceptionally ignorant or stupid.

Also, many fields of physics relate to the environment. Ex: Meteorology, Geophysics, Environmental Physics. You don't think sociologists figure out global warming models, do you?

By borismkv on 10/13/2010 7:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget that the Co-chair of the IPCC is an Atmospheric *physicist*

By theapparition on 10/14/2010 8:23:48 AM , Rating: 3
And the chairman is an Economicist.

Nah, no chance of money doing anything there. :P

By borismkv on 10/13/2010 7:24:37 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize that the term "Climatologist" didn't even exist more than a decade or so ago, right? That no scientists currently working in the field of "Climatology" actually studied that during their educational years? Many of them are Geologists, Physicists, Meteorologists, and Oceanographers.

By robinthakur on 10/14/2010 6:09:09 AM , Rating: 5
Not sure how this relates to his position on Gay marriage in the slightest, and you are eager to rubbish his character without providing any evidence. Do not confuse resolute honesty and decency from a bygone generation with the evangelist GOP dogma you mention. Whether a 'Climatologist' or Physicist, is fairly irrelevent here the underlying subject here is Physics and the discipline is Science.

I thought his comments were well set out and well-reasoned, given that science should be evidential in nature, not merely trying to prove a pre-determined hypothesis or one which is currently in vogue with the chattering classes, government or big business. Above all it should be politically colourless; free from being tinkered with and spun. It is rare these days to find a scientist who will speak out with an unpopular viewpoint which will almost certainly lose funding, however I welcome his honesty and his character, it is all too rare these days. As somebody noted above, his generation knew all about fighting for what they believed in, to determine all the freedom we currently enjoy.

Climate-change as a cause, is patently ridiculous in nature. Using less resources, researching alternative fuel sources and reducing our pollution of the planet etc is a very noble cause and does not require any doomsday speak to get behind. All the climate change bubble leads to is a bevvy of governments and private companies exploiting it as a cause celebré for raising taxes and prices to pay for unproven solutions to non-existent or unquantifiable problems.

Case in point: Thanks to the climate change nonsense, in the UK now we have to pay for disposable carrier bags when we go food shopping in some grocery stores. This despite lots of evidence that the pollution these bags cause is miniscule, relative to flying in Asparagus constantly from Peru by the tonne. Bag usage has not changed since the levy was introduced. Its only 5p each, but why don't the companies just make biodegradeable or paper bags and stop selling plastic bags which cannot be recycled, if they really cared? Could it be that charging 5p per bag per visit is actually earning them millions per year? They should simply call it a conscience-tax and be done with it.

By infiniteset on 10/14/2010 11:29:03 AM , Rating: 2
Based on this lengthy interview with the Professor from 1986

It is clear to see that he is a life-long Democrat and an all around great guy. Let's not mix things up.

By Wolfpup on 10/14/2010 1:54:40 PM , Rating: 1
Yikes, and your post gets thumbed down *rolls eyes*

Who exactly is visiting this site?

At any rate, as everyone here should already know, there is no "climategate". There was no bad science. There was no coverup. There were people talking in private emails about how best to present thing.

And this idea that there's all this money is absurd. The money is in the status quo. It's in oil, it's in cars, etc., etc., etc.

By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 5:03:01 PM , Rating: 4
there is no "climategate".

Incorrect. I read the E-mails myself, as did, I'm sure, thousands of others.

There was no bad science.

Incorrect. Example: Melting Himalayan glaciers.

There was no coverup.

Incorrect. The only reason Phil Jones of the CRU wasn't brought up on charges for violating freedom of info requests was due to expired statute of limitations.

There were people talking in private emails about how best to present thing.

Incorrect. There were people talking in private E-mails how to avoid satisfying FoI requests, how to fudge data, how to hide evidence, how to blacklist "deniers" and even entire scientific publications that would dare publish contrary articles, etc. etc.

By blueaurora on 10/13/2010 5:54:43 PM , Rating: 3
Here here... That guy needs to derive his own institute unfettered by government agendas. The people who are fed up the most are exactly who we need running the show!

By CharonPDX on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
By someguy123 on 10/13/2010 10:42:00 PM , Rating: 5
You're absolutely right, except replace *IS* with *ISN'T*.

By mooty on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By radicledog on 10/14/2010 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, Gonna have to change those *IS*s back to *ISnT*s.

By Hieyeck on 10/14/2010 1:05:03 PM , Rating: 3
Correlation does NOT equal causation.

As I've said in other posts, I could correlate that this morning at 7AM it was 5degrees(C) and it is now 15degrees(C) at roughly 1PM. According to these facts, by this time tomorrow, it will be 55degrees(C).

The earth has beena around for 4 BILLION years. One measly hundred years does not constitute a sample size.

I could just as easily say the Earth was a ball of lava and rock and was quite hot 3 billion years ago. <sarcasm> Clearly we're on a cooling trend. </sarcasm>

By CharonPDX on 10/14/2010 1:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Why, you're exactly right!

My kitchen has had a natural warming/cooling cycle every day for a long time. This warming/cooling cycle does have occasional periods of warmer than average and cooler than average cycles (seasons.)

So the fact that an hour ago, I turned the stove up to max with the door open obviously has *NO* causation to the fact that my kitchen is now warmer than it has ever been........

By Kurz on 10/15/2010 2:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Medieval Warm Period was about 1C warmer than now.
So where was the fabled Oven back then?

Don't pull up those BS numbers the ICCP is saying.
They pretty much halved the temperature stations.
They have many temp stations in cities (Asphalt, concrete tends to increase city temps).

By CharonPDX on 10/17/2010 2:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
And five Summers ago, it hit 108 here, making my kitchen even warmer than it is right now, in spite of the fact that I didn't have the oven on.

That doesn't mean the oven *ISN'T* responsible for my kitchen being hotter now than it has been at any point in the prior four years.

It really is as simple as that. For thousands of years, the Earth has had an equilibrium of CO2 entering the atmosphere and being removed from the atmosphere. 150 years ago, Humans started pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere than the natural cycle could handle.

Yes, we've had natural warming/cooling cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, as observed in fossil record. (Or do you believe that the entire fossil record was placed intact over the course of 6 days, 6000 years ago?) However, when we look at this fossil record, we find that the ups and downs are VERY regular. Except for the last 150 years, when all of a sudden, we have a spike that is completely out-of-sorts with the record. Just like me turning my oven on, disrupting the standard daily cycle of temperatures in my kitchen.

And the Medieval Warm Period was *NOT* a global event. It was a North Atlantic event. Many other parts of the world experienced unusual coolness during the same few hundred years, balancing out the global temperature. Unlike today, where the GLOBAL average is higher. (Yes, we still see local variances - one of the major predictions of most global warming hypothesis is that LOCALLY, temperature fluctuations will be much larger than average, both warmer and cooler. So some areas will see much colder temperatures - the average global will still be higher. Just as one hot Summer doesn't prove global warming, one cold Winter doesn't disprove it.)

By angryplayer on 10/25/2010 4:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
And yet, when I turn my oven on in MY kitchen, the temperature DROPS 10 degrees. When I turn off the oven, it shoots up 15 degrees.


Hardly. What you ignored were an infinite amount of other variables. Just to list a few:
- A poorly insulated oven?
- A poorly ventilated kitchen?
- Were the kitchen partitions closed?
- Was the exhaust fan engaged?
- Was the heater on in the house?

To illustrate the point, I can duplicate these samples with some of these variables. If I increase ventilation and open all the windows in the dead middle of winter, the temperature will drop drastically with the oven on.

After turning off the oven, I close all the windows at 1PM and are west-facing, the strongest light of day is pouring through the windows. I also turn on the heater and close the kitchen partitions. This would then drastically raise the temperatures.

I'm not disputing global warming, I'm disputing the fact that humans have anything to do with it. We're STILL infinitesimally small on the scale of the planet. LIFE itself is small. Simply put, we don't understand all the variables, especially the ones on a cosmic scale. I've never seen one paper factor axis tilt. They all assume the Earth has been tilted for 23 degrees in its 4 billion years. At the same time, just because CO2 has an observable effect, it doesn't mean it's a significant effect. Methane from natural decomposition is much more dangerous to the ozone layer - are you going to put a lid on cow farms and swampland? Our observable data doesn't even make a scratch in geological histories. Even if we use the flimsy data from 200 years ago, that probably amounts to digging about 1mm into dirt. It's not just the quantity of data points, but the quality as well. Yes in a closed system, your oven is the greatest source of change in your kitchen, but the moment you realize it's an open system with kitchen partitions and windows you can open to the winter weather, it's a VERY small factor to even the local temperature.

The climate system is VERY open, there's alot of geological data pointing to global averages flip-flopping between roasting and freezing a great many times and that when plotted and extrapolated, that it's probably going to happen a great many more times, with or without 'human help'. To use another analogy, what you're doing is like saying the stock market will be spectacular because your penny stocks (or even Apple stocks if you will) shot up in the past 2 minutes. There's a billion other stocks that affect the market and a hundred years of Wall St. history that show economic cycles are a greater driver of performance than anything else. Climate cycles are a greater driver of global average temp than anything else.

By clovell on 10/14/2010 1:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
Achieving 'consensus' through muzzling dissenting opinions isn't science, but a masturbation of the mind.

By lucifer84 on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
By Zdub79 on 10/13/2010 11:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
The conspiracy isn't within the scientific community. They're opinions are being swayed by the money offered to them for their research, but the ones who it benefits the most are some very large corporations. Do the research and see who is going to make the money in the end. GE is one of the largest, they stand to make billions when new regulations are put into place. Not to mention the new Carbon Exchange, and the government when they try to enforce a carbon tax on all goods. Another person with ties to the money end of all this is our good friend Al Gore, he is invested in a company along with Goldman Sachs that has stake in the new carbon exchange. So he stands to make lots of money off of climate change and comes out with a movie saying that there is climate change, that's a "Convenient Truth". If you take the time to put all the pieces together the truth is evident.

By lucifer84 on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By ekv on 10/14/2010 4:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
If you say climate change is touted by those with monetary interests I could just say the same for outer-space.
Is outer-space a person? An object has no conscience, no conflict-of-interest. An object does not seek monetary reward, nor is unduly influenced by it. Your statement is thusly illogical.

Dr. Lewis is saying that "the vast majority of the climatologist community" would like to discuss this in a wider context, w/o fear of retribution or recrimination (as has already taken place by Phil Jones).

By lucifer84 on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By ekv on 10/14/2010 6:36:34 AM , Rating: 5
Ahh, so you meant something more along the lines of

"If you say [the theory of] climate change is touted by those [persons] with monetary interests I could just say the same for [the theory/concept of] outer-space."

But now, the concept of outer space and its antagonists are not demanding trillions of dollars because it is man-made and threatens to destroy us, irreversibly w/i the next 10 years. I fail to see a conspiracy in your simile.
Another typically one-sided view
Since you put it that way, I also fail to see how APS suppressing discussion isn't one-sided. And as far as recrimination is concerned, perhaps you have not read the ClimateGate emails [one of Dr. Lewis' stipulations, no?]. It is patently clear that Phil Jones took action to suppress discussion of opposing viewpoints. Is it the word "recrimination" you object to?

Or perhaps you work with the East Anglia CRU in some remote capacity? you perhaps have a vested interest in AGW? or you have an axe to grind vis-à-vis Dr. Lewis?

By lucifer84 on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By raumkrieger on 10/18/2010 1:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
+10 to you sir, and +100 to this brave intelligent scientist.

Funny how one comment can spawn dozens if not hundreds of comments on various topics, some barely related at all to the article.

By Chris m on 10/21/2010 3:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to see so many bold lies by a bold liar!

By Chris m on 10/21/2010 3:29:26 PM , Rating: 1
Yep,telling lie translates into "having balls" in today's society. SALUTE! AND FUCK YOU!

Polar Bear
By btc909 on 10/13/2010 5:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously "Climate Change" caused that Polar Bear to drown. Can we please make up a name for said Polar Bear.

Plus a sappy story: "As the Polar Bear stayed atop the rapidly melting ice knowning a watery Titanic esq like bitter cold death awaits ...

RE: Polar Bear
By surt on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Polar Bear
By dgingeri on 10/13/2010 5:46:56 PM , Rating: 5
Did you know polar bears drown all the time? Did you know more polar bears were recorded drowning in 1967 than in 2005? (137 in 1967 vs 101 in 2005) How can anyone say that is caused by climate change at all? The data for polar bear drowning deaths is all over the board, and scientists admit that most are never even discovered. In 2005, there could have been as many as 10,000 drown or as few as 105. All we know is that 105 were found.

This is not anything close to a scientific test for the effects of climate change. Don't paint it as such.

RE: Polar Bear
By surt on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Polar Bear
By dgingeri on 10/13/2010 6:07:44 PM , Rating: 5
but we know with 100% certainty that climate change caused a lot of polar bears to die.

That was what I was commenting on. No, we don't know this, and we can't know this. There is no scientific way to prove this because polar bear deaths by drowning aren't tracked nearly enough to ever show any correlation.

RE: Polar Bear
By mooty on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Polar Bear
By theapparition on 10/14/2010 9:46:15 AM , Rating: 5
Do we?

Because the latest studies show that Polar Bear populations are the highest in several decades.

Another red herring tossed about by the camp that refuses to accept science and fact.

Angry guys tend to beat thier wives more. Superbowl gets a lot of guys angry. Conclusion.....More wives get beat on Superbowl day than any other day.

That is completely false, and Superbowl day usually results in lower than average domestic dispute rates, as compiled from the national records of recorded complaints. However, it was a feminist author who postulated such an event was probable. And such the media latched on to a plausible event and it became modern folklore, even after it has been proven false.

AGW is no different.
Global warming melts ice. Polar bears need ice. Conclusion, polar bears are dying because of global warming, despite facts to the contrary.

RE: Polar Bear
By surt on 10/14/2010 1:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
Again, you're reading too much into my statement.

RE: Polar Bear
By JediJeb on 10/13/2010 6:59:16 PM , Rating: 3
Well, it may or may not have caused THAT polar bear to drown, but we know with 100% certainty that climate change caused a lot of polar bears to die.

How do we know with 100% certainty climate change was to blame? Polar Bears have been dying for thousands of years what makes recent deaths any different? What can we see in an autopsy that proves climate change was to blame? Matter of fact less ice should cause fewer polar bears to drown, because getting trapped under the ice is what most likely causes them to drown, since they are excellent swimmers. Where are the indepth studies that show climate change as the culprit in polar bear deaths?

Sounds like the study reported on here awhile back where the researchers said they had proof that global warming was going to cause the extinction of many desert dwelling birds but they had yet to actually begin the study.

RE: Polar Bear
By surt on 10/14/2010 2:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
Die and drown are not the same words. Record polar bear population declines have been successfully tied to starvation (at autopsy), and the starvation is tied to reduced hunting opportunities caused by climate change. Climate change kills polar bears.

Not hard to argue with that assertion
By surt on 10/13/2010 5:06:26 PM , Rating: 3
Whether you agree or disagree with the current state of global warming research, it's hard to argue with that assertion.

No it's not, look, I'm doing it. The assertion is no where near the importance of Martin Luther's actions, and only a ridiculously invested fool would compare the two.

There you go.

RE: Not hard to argue with that assertion
By clovell on 10/14/2010 1:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Martin Luther happened to be the final cog in the machine that kicked off the Reformation. If he hadn't, someone else would have. In fact, the Lutheran church birthed but a fraction of mainstream protestant denominations.

Comparing the two is anything but foolish, particularly when one considers the similarities between the Catholic Church at the time of the reformation, and the AGW movement now.

Cute ad hominem attack to support your 'because I say so' argument, though.

RE: Not hard to argue with that assertion
By surt on 10/14/2010 2:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
You understand that that's precisely what I was criticizing about the article, right? The point of my post was to illustrate how ridiculous it was.

By clovell on 10/14/2010 4:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, dammit - I seem to be confused today. Sorry about that.

This Article is a Fraud
By GTVic on 10/13/2010 5:14:17 PM , Rating: 1
The headline makes it sound like the scientist is arguing against climate change.

He is stating that politics, fear mongering and profiteering are corrupting the science. Nothing more and nothing less.

RE: This Article is a Fraud
By snyper256 on 10/14/2010 6:12:57 AM , Rating: 3
Are you saying that you don't see the direct connection between the two things you just mentioned..

RE: This Article is a Fraud
By Jaybus on 10/14/2010 1:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, well he isn't arguing for it either, is he? He most likely took it for granted that no sensible person would presume to make any conclusions at all based on corrupt science. One would think he wouldn't need to clarify the obvious.

We need more scientists with Lewis' integrity, lest we be at the mercy of corrupt scientists spewing conjecture and nonsense as if it were fact, simply to further their own fund raising agendas.

RE: This Article is a Fraud
By FITCamaro on 10/14/2010 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
He's arguing against man-made climate change. Which is the basis of all the money being spent.

In the letter he directly calls the Climate-gate documents proof of the fraud.

Pretty obvious you didn't read the whole thing.

Oh boy...
By quiksilvr on 10/13/2010 4:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
*ducks under table*



Troll: Nyah, Jews caused 9/11!

Sigh...where is Ted Stevens when you need him?

RE: Oh boy...
By FITCamaro on 10/13/2010 4:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe. The polar bear is on a piece of ice that looks phallic in shape.

I mean....rabble...RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!

Good to see a true scientist stand up for what he believes in such a prominent way.

RE: Oh boy...
By surt on 10/13/2010 5:00:33 PM , Rating: 1
Sigh...where is Ted Stevens when you need him?

In little chunks scattered across a hillside in Alaska.

RE: Oh boy...
By mkrech on 10/13/2010 5:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
oooo.... to soon!


Castanza would be proud
By Suntan on 10/13/2010 4:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
The guy sure didn’t pull any punches.

That’s a George Castanza-style resignation letter if I ever read one.


RE: Castanza would be proud
By tdawg on 10/13/2010 5:08:41 PM , Rating: 4
Jerry: "You're going to burn that bridge too?"
George: "Flame on!"

Scientists need to do real science!.
By fteoath64 on 10/14/2010 10:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
Great courage from a person with strong principles!. We need more of these rather than the ones corrupted by power or blackmailed by withdrawal of funding.

Scientists need to be way more constructive to help SOLVE the human concern in climate change rather than fool the populace with their munbo-jumbo!. People are getting smarter and waking up to see the scam...

RE: Scientists need to do real science!.
By Lee Usa on 10/14/2010 1:04:10 PM , Rating: 1
Professor Lewis denounces the "global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists" ... yet ignores the even larger sums coming from the fossil fuel corporations?

Missing that elephant in the room throws his cognitive skills (and ethics) into question.

By JediJeb on 10/14/2010 3:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
I get the feeling that he would include both sides of the agruement in the term "scam". He was calling for unbiased research, he didn't say unbiased research that proved it wrong. Honestly any research that was started with a point to prove despite what the data gathered might show would be part of the scam, be it for or against.

I have the same problem Dr. Lewis has when it comes to organizations such as this becoming more politically based than science based. If that is what has happened then he has every right to be upset.

By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 5:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
yet ignores the even larger sums coming from the fossil fuel corporations?

Cite the "larger sums". Explain why their bias forgives bias in others. Bad work is bad work; it's not okay to do bad work if someone else is doing worse work.

Global Warming
By seraphim1982 on 10/14/2010 10:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure that Global warming is real, IMO. I live in Canada and I have not seen a winter as crazy as the ones I've seen when I was a little kid. Moreso over, the winters when my dad first reach Toronto were even worse.

This is more of the glass half-full/half empty.
You could say there is not enough historical data to accurately predict global warming, as it may be a trend. Although, the same could be said that use current data, extrapolating that the earth's and ocean temperatures are rising each year. But pro-global warming people have got some things right. Keep the earth clean, reduce emissons, etc. We are all on this giant rock for a long time, might as well make it livable for future generations.

RE: Global Warming
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 5:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Do not conflate "anthropogenic global warming" and "pollution issues". Keeping arsenic out of the water is a great idea; has nothing to do with AGW. Keeping our skies smog-free is a great idea; but again, nothing to do with AGW.

People can support the notion of keeping the planet clean and getting more efficiency out of our vehicles or power infrastructure without buying into the emotionally-laden dogma of the AGW movement.

RE: Global Warming
By Suntan on 10/15/2010 12:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
News flash... The snow storms always seemed a lot deeper back when we were all young kids barely 3 to 4 feet tall...

Just saying.


They told me in school...
By Lawrence99 on 10/14/2010 11:03:51 AM , Rating: 5
They told me in school that your experiments results are never a failure, regardless of the conclusions correlation with your hypothesis. We were pointed towards the idea that as long as your results are accurate and demostrate an objective outcome; that is good science and your reward, whether you were right or wrong, is the information obtained.

I'm 24. I fail to see what we're scared of in my generations inevitable inheritance of the Earth other than perhaps the passage of time. Although I'd give your natural selection vs benefit children/welfare children arguments merit.

This physicist, Harold Lewis, resigns over what he feels to be an obstruction of a scientific fundament; something even I, as a child who did not continue to pursue science past school, be it physics, biology or whatever, was taught as a principle of science. He came to this decision as a member of APS who has both actual real world experience and, what he feels is evidence of a conflict of interest and integrity outside of his own realm.

I tip my hat personally. I hope he can make some sort of difference somewhere again; he clearly supports the idea of an unbiased science whether global warming is real or not.

Also: Scam = a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle.

It does seem more than likely that global warming is lining too many pockets, no matter which side of the fence they are on. Harold Lewis, probably more qualified to act than anyone commeting on this post/article, has decided.

Global Warming is a scam!
By chunkymonster on 10/14/2010 10:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
Cheers to the Professor and kudos for calling out the hypocrisy and ulterior motives behind global warming research.

Time for folks to wake up and realize the truth being hidden in plain sight.

RE: Global Warming is a scam!
By INeedCache on 10/14/2010 11:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
I am not trying to change the topic here, nor am I a Creationist. That said, I wonder if you would apply most of your own comments to evolution, since your comments do fit pretty well with that, as well?

By seraphim1982 on 10/14/2010 10:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Jesus was Real..... Not True

So is Global Warming....True

RE: Wait
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 5:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus very likely was real. Whether he walked on water, raised the dead, healed leprosy, or banged Mary the Whore is what's really up for debate...

Really old guy is cranky, big deal
By larsonre on 10/15/2010 1:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
If he has anything to publish on the topic of global warming, I suggest he do so. Throwing a hissy fit and indulging in name calling is par for the course in political theater, but it is not science.

The scientific evidence and scientific consensus is overwhelming: global warming is real, undeniabe, and man- made. Grow up people.

Oh, by the way, if there is one shred of evidence to refute the above statement, it will make headlines in both Science and Nature (those a scientific journals for all you incredibly well read bloggers out there who really ought to try cracking the spine of anything vaguely intellectual before you echo the latest rantings you have been reading on your yahoo! news feed. Get a life).

By The Raven on 10/15/2010 2:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
The scientific evidence and scientific consensus is overwhelming: global warming is real, undeniabe, and man- made. Grow up people.

I think you are missing the point. (I assume you based your conclusions on scientific research and not just because you feel that there is a significant man-made effect on the climate.)
This guy is saying that if you read some research then it might very well be untrustworthy. So you can't say, "The scientific evidence and scientific consensus is overwhelming."

That said, I do have eyes and a nose and can tell that the air is very dirty in most major metro areas. Can we all just agree on that point and focus on it. Leave the fighting behind and just make the world a better place.

If we all become more efficient (of our own choosing) and clean the air and reduce waste, what difference will this global warming crap even matter? So what is the point of arguing about it.

I mean it is like arguing that cell phone use causes cancer, when people are dying in accidents because they were texting. I don't need to put my trust in a scientist to tell me that the chances of death will increase while texting and driving. I do need to trust a scientist who claims that cell phone usage causes cancer.

GW is reality.
By marraco on 10/17/2010 4:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
I had access to satellite measures of ocean’s surface, and yes, the oceans are rising centimeters each year, in the last decades (as long as we had satellite measuring it).

Yes, the poles are melting, and we can navigate areas for first time in history, and yes, Greenland is losing more ice that anybody predicted.

The global warning is a reality, and the oil industry finds it inconvenient.

I suspect that this dude is the corrupted one.

RE: GW is reality.
By superflex on 10/18/2010 12:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
...and sea levels rose and the poles melted numerous times in Earth's history.
Here in Ohio we have Ordovician (440 million years ago) interbedded limestone and shale which corresponds to rising and falling sea levels.
I'm sure Exxon Mobil and the Republicans caused the extinction of the trilobites as well.
40 years of satellite data does not make a bit of difference when were are looking at billions of years of history.

sound familiar?
By dgingeri on 10/13/2010 5:25:38 PM , Rating: 3
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

This is the case with all science these days. If you don't subscribe to the climate change issue, you're branded a heretic and cast out...

...just like the Catholic church of the middle ages.

Where, oh where are the scientists of old? Where are those who took an objective approach? What ever happened to pure science? It has been replaced with old fashioned religion.

By christojojo on 10/13/2010 4:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
1. Blaming bovines emissions for increased CH4 emissions/ global warming

2. Politicians taking the forefront in this whole thing. Frankly, anything that interests so many at once is scary to me. We have problems with education and they get a hold of it and it gets worse. War on poverty, war on drugs, (add to the list)

Holy #$!!
By ArenaNinja on 10/13/2010 8:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
I know a physics major at UCSB. Maybe I'll run into this guy this week.

Wow. This is weird L_L

What makes the "top" in physics?
By sleepeeg3 on 10/14/2010 2:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
...and when do the DailyTech bloggers follow? You know who you are...

By Angstromm on 10/14/2010 9:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, no facts. He may or may not have grounds for his supposition/thesis. Etc. And global warming as a humankind-generated phenomena may or may not be "real": We may be contributing a lot or little to the warming trend. That said, we are in many ways an ecologically destructive force and I don't think it's such a bad idea if we start to take some responsibility for our behavior, curb our gluttony for resources, and demonstrate/practice some restraint.

Not Just APS, but the ASA too
By clovell on 10/14/2010 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
I've felt the same way about the American Statistical Association, who, without poll or discussion, has officially aligned themselves with AGW.

Then climategate hit, and the most damning of all conclusions was the utter lack of statistical collaboration when adjustments to data and advanced modelling techniques were the norm for the climate scientists who bore no formal statistical training.

The ASA batted not an eye at this. I let my membership lapse for a year, until it began to affect my ability to participate in my local chapter, who does not take their charter so far as to speak on politicized issues regarding science in which they are NOT involved - as the national branch has done.

ASA has made an ass of itself much as the APS. I've been equally appalled at its track record of injecting politics into an academic organization. I wait for the day when my own resume can stand alone without claiming its membership, and my officer positions in the local chapter. Maybe then, I'll write my own letter of resignation...

By texbrazos on 10/14/2010 12:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about global warming, but I am sure about all the chemicals and toxins released into the air and water are terrible for all of us. That is where the focus should be. Ever wonder why you got mercury warnings in fish, PCB's?
All thanks to coal plants, chemical plants, and the petroleum industry.

By Lee Usa on 10/14/2010 1:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Prof. Harold Lewis denounces the "global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists" ... yet ignores the even larger sums coming from the fossil fuel corporations? Missing that elephant in the room throws his cognitive skills (and ethics) into question.

An inconvenient truth indeed!
By jahwarrior on 10/14/2010 4:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
Big surprise!...did anyone not expect this to come out eventually? When bad science gets mixed in with politics and public policy it’s a recipe for disaster. Perhaps this disaster is adverted for now.

By I AM THE TEA PARTY on 10/14/2010 5:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
"WE ARE THE PEOPLE! WE ARE THE STATES! The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ((( I AM THE TEA PARTY! ))) NOT RACIST, NOT VIOLENT, JUST NOT SILENT ANYMORE! BIG GOVERNMENT = BAD GOVERNMENT. Replace, Repeal, Restore” Join us on Facebook! [ AGREE? Copy paste this EVERYWHERE!]

Who cares?
By BobfromLI on 10/15/2010 10:00:55 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that one physicist has come to the conclusion that he can't come to a conclusion is of no particular import. Whether we are, in fact, getting warmer as a planet is hard to refute. We see glaciers disappearing and we see a Northwest Passage opening in the Arctic. Record peak temperatures are occurring worldwide.

Is it manmade or natural? I am not wise enough to know. What I do know is that if we take steps to limit our potential part of the contribution, we've done what we can. To take the position that the scientific community is engaging in groupthink and must, perforce, ignore the information we do have is just foolish.

agree and scary
By Altagon on 10/18/2010 9:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
It was obvious for educated people long time ago. Unfortunately science is complicate and general population is getting less and less educated (thanks for our great school system!). fair scientist can not change the trend because money and power is on the "dark side". There are two possible outcome:

1. Quick fix: new Big War is coming, so physicists are in a high demand and respect due to new Big Bomb development. I am not in favor of this future but ...

2. Natural fix: in a few 10th/100th years we just come to a right track due to natural case. It was many times in a history (remember Galileo and many others).

By triadone on 10/18/2010 11:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'd take this with a grain of salt. Granted, this guy has a vast more amount of experience in research than I (as a fellow PhD), but it doesn't seem to take into account the prospect of, well, science. Basically, once an area of study starts to flesh out it's normal for there to be momentum behind further research, particularly when there is a larger social cost to not exploring further. Imagine the scientific community stopping with Einstein's work and saying, "Well, he got that whole quark thing discovered. Next!" If that had been the case, we'd be waiting for Moore's law to crap out with no quark computing (or alternatives) being possible. I'll go out on a pretty stout limb to say that anytime there is money involved there is the likelihood of corruption occurring, but that doesn't mean that it is everywhere. Needless to say, if this is going on even in the minority, there should absolutely be reforms put in place or already present regulations enforced. That said, I have a hard time believing that research being done (en masse) by researchers associated with academic programs (housed within university's that have their reputations built around being sound research institutions) would be doing this across the board. Private, for-profit scientific groups? Yes, that seems much more likely. There is too high a penalty (lose the grant, get fired, have your academic program dissolved, your reputation getting obliterated, the university losing unrelated grants as a result, etc.) for this kind of research fraud for research schools for this to be entirely common.

I will admit, however, the financial crash showed us a lot about how seemingly sound and stable societal structures can be awash in tomfoolery.

I'll keep my skeptical eye out for any subtext which might indicate his retirement lectures being funded by anonymous PACs potentially backed by BP et al. LOL

By Stories84 on 10/19/2010 4:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
This guy is old and hasn't been involved in the scientific community for some time now. Notice the title Emeritus in his job description.

By Frank Paolino on 11/7/2010 11:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
I love the principled, reasoned arguments of Harold Lewis.

Once science devolves into politics (think Galileo against the church) for "vehement suspicion of heresy.", then all hope is lost for the great tradition of reasoned debate.

This discussion on global warming has turned into a moral debate, not a scientific one. The vast amounts of research money added into the equation have a multiplying effect on the emotions in the debate. Which does not help in keeping people calm.

Here is a posting I did to calculate how much the atmosphere is being heated based on burning the 84 million barrels of oil produced daily in the world:

Consensus says
By Shuxclams on 10/14/2010 11:50:38 AM , Rating: 1
'A' Scientist out of 'Many' Scientists says it's wrong/fraud/farce/blah-dee-blah. I suppose we could argue what a theory is again. Meanwhile a cat died lastnight, a tree fell in someones backyard and the sun will rise in the east.

Dissenting scientist
By monkeyman1140 on 10/14/2010 12:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
There's one in every crowd. I wonder if he invested in tinfoil futures.

Al Gore rebuttal
By bfellow on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
literally wrong
By surt on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
No facts given in letter
By LongTimePCUser on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: No facts given in letter
By bplewis24 on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: No facts given in letter
By dgingeri on 10/13/2010 5:36:22 PM , Rating: 3
He does say this:
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

He does site that rather that discuss, and ask "what if we're wrong", many scientific organizations and schools brand scientists as heretical if they even question climate change. They don't allow deeper looks into the climate models which hold solar radiation and water vapor percentage as constants, when they are anything but. They don't allow anyone to expand and try to prove things one way or another. They just declare that the debate is over and they've won, which is just not the case.

If someone were to show me a climate model that also takes into account the adjustments in solar radiation, water vapor in the atmosphere, and other factors, while also using all temperature data from around the world, (instead of cherry picking their data) then I'll begin to believe. So far, I have only seen half-assed "science" trying to prove climate change, with presupposed conclusions in tow. I will not, ever, accept science that has to be taken on faith in the scientists doing it. It must be repeatable and logical. Climate change "science" is anything but. I will not accept a heretic label just because those in power want to stay in power or want more power. The whole thing right now is all political power play, not science.

It has not been proven. The debate is not over.

RE: No facts given in letter
By hr824 on 10/13/2010 11:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Your kidding right? or do you actually believe people with phd's just didn't think to include sun output, water vapor, and temperature data in their models?

Look through the data on the right , there are a few other things that you didn't mention because people that do the work know a tad more than you and I'm guessing they didn't forget things like world wide temperature data in their models.

RE: No facts given in letter
By dgingeri on 10/14/2010 5:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
funny you should use NOAA for your group, after they were specifically pegged for cherry picking their temperature data for years.

Oh, and you've got to just love how they have most of their data rooted in the worst part of little ice age, which lasted 4 times as long as this so called warming period.

They also exclude temperature data, which they can get as accurate as the data from the 1800s, from the medieval warm period, which was warmer than we are now, yet there was no industry or burning of fossil fuels. Can you say "Scottish wine was better than French wine"? We still don't have good enough climate to allow for vineyards in Scotland. Yet they did in the 900s. I'd personally like those days to return, and they will, on a natural cycle.

RE: No facts given in letter
By hr824 on 10/14/2010 8:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh you claimed climate models lacked important data in them I was showing you that your wrong.

Here we go with the temperature data again
NASA GISS scientist Jim Hansen, who helped devise the algorithm used to correct for the various climate factors, wrote in an Aug. 10 e-mail that the errors were introduced when the U.S. stations switched between two different datasets in 2000, with the faulty assumption that the second dataset also included the necessary corrections, an error that was recognized and fixed, Hansen said. Acknowledging that 1934 now appears to have been slightly hotter than 1998 in the United States, he noted that the difference in the mean between the two years, of 0.02 degrees Celsius, was and always had been smaller than the uncertainty, although their relative positions are now flipflopped. Globally, however, the changes had no effect on rankings, and 1998 was still by far the warmest year on record before 2005"

Yes is was unusually warm during medieval times but since this is a global issue other parts of the planet were unusually cooler at the same time so they cancel each other out. This has been know for a while, do some research before you post. Repeting incorrect information over and over doesn't make it true.

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 10:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
There is indeed important data missing from the models: Water vapor and its behavior. Since the early '90s they simply assumed water vapor would create a positive feedback effect, resulting in the old "runaway global warming" canard. They've since backed off, since it now looks like water vapor causes a NEGATIVE feedback effect.

Yes is was unusually warm during medieval times but since this is a global issue other parts of the planet were unusually cooler at the same time so they cancel each other out.

There is no evidence that the "unusually cooler" parts of the world at the time were of such a spread as to "cancel out" the much warmer areas. There IS evidence that current warming patterns are in line with historical warming patterns, as long as you go back over one thousand years.

RE: No facts given in letter
By hr824 on 10/14/2010 12:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
"1962 that fundamentally changed the approach to studying physical processes that drive climate. Dr. Smagorinsky's paper was based on his research using primitive equations of atmospheric dynamics to simulate the atmosphere's circulation. Dr. Smagorinsky's work led to the extension of early weather models to include variables such as cloud cover, precipitation, turbulence, and radiation emanating from the Earth and sun."

Hmmm seems they have included the things you posted about a long time ago.

Hey look at this!!

With minimal searching you can actually find an article that gives some insight on models they're using! Amazing the things you can find when your willing to look for them.

RE: No facts given in letter
By ekv on 10/14/2010 4:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
Amazing the things you can find when your willing to look for them.
If only the APS shared your perspective....

RE: No facts given in letter
By hr824 on 10/14/2010 12:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
"In response to Lewis's letter, the APS took the unusual step of issuing a public statement on Tuesday. The society says there is "no truth to Dr Lewis's assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain," adding that the "specific charge that APS as an organization is benefiting financially from climate-change funding is equally false"."

"Gavin Schmidt, a climate physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, denies Lewis's claim that research in climate change is congruent with financial gain. "People don't get paid to get results," he says. "Funding pays for postdocs, graduate students and equipment." Schmidt adds the issue raised by Lewis is "a manufactured story" to make people believe there is some discontent in the profession."

"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."

"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."

RE: No facts given in letter
By ekv on 10/14/2010 3:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
Gavin Schmidt?! The same Gavin Schmidt implicated in the ClimateGate emails? The same Gavin Schmidt that denies Michael Mann's 'hockey-stick graph' is a fake? puhlease.

Fenton hosts

RE: No facts given in letter
By hr824 on 10/14/2010 9:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
Implicated in what? replacing some tree ring data from some small group of trees in asia they know is wrong with real thermoter data.....the horror.

"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."

I think that link of yours is wrong.

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 10:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
replacing some tree ring data from some small group of trees in asia they know is wrong with real thermoter data.....the horror.

They dismissed it because it didn't match their pre-experiment assumptions. Clearly, if it doesn't support the AGW movement, it MUST be wrong, eh?

A real scientist would have noticed that something is wrong between their model and actual measurement and gone back to the beginning to rework the model. A fraud simply tosses out the data he doesn't like and substitutes data he does like, all under the justification of, "I'm a scientist."

RE: No facts given in letter
By ekv on 10/15/2010 3:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious why you didn't put a link for your quotes so I went looking...

and I notice you left off the closing paragraphs. Why would you do that? Unless you're afraid to have it part of the discussion. Perhaps we all can have a look-see, no?

"Lewis does, however, have some support among physicists. "[Lewis] is on target with the big picture," says Princeton physicist Will Happer, a leader of last year's effort to change the APS statement on climate change.

"The APS says in response to the "widespread interest expressed by its members" that it will now organize a "topical group" to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate."

So with APS press secretary Tawanda Johnson issuing the statement disagreeing with Dr. Lewis on the one hand, APS agrees with him on the other (by now allowing a TG). Furthermore, why is this statement given to IOP? It is a totally different organization. The statement is nowhere to be found on the APS network. Why? Then again, what the heck does Gavin Schmidt have to do with Dr. Callan and the APS? Or was Schmidt name-dropped at T. Johnson's initiative?

And would you look at the comments posted (at the physicsworld link)! My, my, it would appear Dr. Curtis Callan has violated the APS code of ethics [with his let-them-eat-cake dismissal of Dr. Lewis]. Oh, of course, you threw all that constitution and ethics stuff out, so it doesn't matter. Is that it?
I think that link of yours is wrong.
You claim I'm wrong because you don't understand business. Perhaps that's your version of magnanimity but it is simply tendentious.

RE: No facts given in letter
By homebredcorgi on 10/14/2010 2:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo. This research has been going on far longer than most people realize. Arrhenius was studying the mechanisms of what changes the climate in 1894. Fourier and Pouillet were also doing basic climate work in the late 1800's and predicted that the atmosphere acts to trap heat. They even had theories that carbon dioxide could be a key variable to warming the atmosphere. So we've been working on this for over 100 years.

Here's a very recent NOAA study:

In it, they list 10 key measurements (sea temp, ground temp, sea ice, humidity, etc) and what we would expect them to be doing if the Earth were warming. Their findings show that all 10 are doing exactly what they predicted if the Earth were warming. This is how science works. You make predictions, then do experiments to verify/falsify those predictions.

For whatever reason, the majority of posters on DT appear to think there is either some grand conspiracy to keep global warming alive or the last 100 years of research into climatology are not only flawed, but completely wrong.

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 5:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
the majority of posters on DT appear to think there is either some grand conspiracy to keep global warming alive

Ah, yes, the "Monolithic Conspiracy" retort. Nope, sorry man, but you're wrong; the events we see are more readily explained by a large series of much smaller conspiracies, probably among individual research groups. They ARE still competing with each other for funding, after all. Are you suggesting one research group won't engage in questionable tactics to secure funding over a rival?

No, the real problem is environmental preference, in which funding goes to those groups that indicate a bias in favor of the pro-AGW party line. No grand conspiracy needed, just clever enough groups of scientist that recognize the finite amount of money that might possibly go their way.

RE: No facts given in letter
By dgingeri on 10/14/2010 5:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
There is a conspiracy, somewhat. Here is what the liberal politicians think:

1. global warming gives an excuse to reduce consumption of cheap energy, which is the basis of our current prosperity
2. prosperous people are difficult to rule because they have things that equalize power with government
3. if they can drive down prosperity, they can reduce the ability of the regular people to defend themselves, and thus gain power for their faction
4. if they drive down prosperity enough, they gain power through "redistribution of wealth" turning people into slaves of the poles. they would only be able to survive as long as they vote liberal
5. at a certain point, power comes to a tipping point, allowing a government faction to take totalitarian control and banish other factions (We are very close on this point now, with >60% of the house and nearly 60% of the senate, as well as the presidency under liberal control)
6. at that tipping point, the one faction can declare a "climate emergency", snag emergency powers, abolish gasoline, abolish cheap electricity, and stick the American people into the dark ages. They then drive the economy into the dirt and blame the opposite faction, cementing their power.

With these things, they would establish liberal totalitarian power. nobody would be able to stand against them. Watch for this coming up. It will likely happen shortly after the next election if they lose bad enough. Watch for a NOAA or EPA study that shows a "CO2 tipping point" coming up in the next 2-3 years that "makes global warming irreversible" and "render the world uninhabitable" in 10 years. They'll try their best to establish emergency powers to the EPA and the president to do things to our energy infrastructure without congressional approval. The actual totalitarian power will come through this new law and will probably take about 10 years to be completely established through lawsuit after lawsuit. The EPA, backed up by NOAA studies, and the courts will be their tool for gaining power. Congress will become powerless to prevent it, no matter who is elected. Tech jobs and companies will collapse at this point, under more and more EPA rules and regulations. This will be about 10 years after the "climate emergency" is declared. The CO2 levels will be the same, but no rapid warming will result. By this time, people begin to realize it's all a ruse, but nobody will be able to do anything about it.

They'll establish a socialist state and begin making it impossible to form a new small business through EPA requirements. This will cripple the economy as welfare begins taking all the money away from any industry that isn't fully cooperative. More and more people will go on welfare until any opposition collapses completely. Then the welfare system will become a "government work" system, driving people into menial labor and non-technical positions. College loan systems will collapse shortly before this happens to make sure people do not get educated unless they get the liberal grants to go into government and environmental jobs that reinforce the liberal power structure. This will be about 20-25 years after the "climate emergency" is declared.

At this point, government services and utilities will begin to collapse because of lack of tax money. taxes will rise, and those who thought they'd have power in the new order will have a rude awakening. the entertainment industry will collapse, and all those rich directors, actors, and actresses will be penniless. Science will grind to a halt. By 35 years after the "climate emergency", we'll be in a totally communist, totalitarian situation.

This has happened before in more fragile circumstances: Venezuela. a once blooming economy has been completely looted and collapsed in less than 20 years. The whole country is in a shambles only 25 years after being declared the second best economy in South America.

This could have been prevented 2 years ago. Now, we're going to have to rely on some of the Democrat insiders who actually have a conscience to prevent this from happening. We'll find out how it works out in November and December. The only way to avoid it is to have either someone inside NOAA or the EPA oppose the study or Democrat congressmen oppose the emergency powers.

RE: No facts given in letter
By ezekiel68 on 10/14/2010 9:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, all the carefully laid plans of liberal politicians laid bare by your stupefying powers of deduction. All those many decades before when Congress and the White House were held by Democrats, they somehow held back their urge to take totalitarian control of the country. But not this time!

This time will be different!

We could have stopped them two years ago. We could have simply doubled down and asked Washington for eight more wonderful years of the most inept policy-making this country has ever seen. I wonder what could possibly have possessed us to miss that golden opportunity?

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 10:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, all the carefully laid plans of liberal politicians laid bare by your stupefying powers of deduction

Carefully laid? More like clumsily engaged. There's no reason to suspect that the buffoonish embrace of the AGW movement by major leaders is a result of them and their people being nothing more than phony imbeciles. They got suckered in by impressive-sounding Star Trek dialogue and it's the little people that are getting screwed by it.

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 10:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
*is anything but a result of them, etc. etc.

RE: No facts given in letter
By DominionSeraph on 10/14/2010 11:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Prosperity is bad for liberalism? WTF?

The conservative utopia is a world in which nothing ever changes. The absence of growth in any arena. Having the majority of the population as uneducated serfs blindly in lockstep with the dominant religion is just about the best a conservative can realistically dream for.

But the economic system you may associate with Republicans isn't conservative at all. A pants-off, anything goes, try-anything and let the system decide system? That's insanely liberal.
Rebublicans and Democrats aren't very far apart on economic theory. Economically, Republicans are godless Evolutionists; while Democrats also believe in evolution, but think it's better if its direction is guided by a benevolent Intelligent Designer.

In the larger picture, either will work.

The Republican system describes only part of a cycle, though. Republicans think there are no limits to how imbalanced the wealth distribution can be: that infinite progress can be made to infinite disparity. But this is not the case. The stratification into a smaller and smaller predatory population and a larger and larger prey population cannot be maintained because there's no physical differences between the classes. They prey are physically capable of predation in their own right, and are not infinitely meek. So the system is unstable, and when it inevitably crashes though a Worker's Revolution you have socialism. Then the natural progression is to stratify again.
Not very efficient because you lose a lot in the crashes, lose more as the system fumbles about trying to make socialism work, then reorganizes back into an evolutionary system.

The Democratic system merely integrates both halves of that cycle. It is partly capitalistic and partly socialistic. The actions of Democrats tend to be mostly socialistic because Republicans take care of the capitalistic direction when they're in power, because that's all their tiny brains know. Republicans play the donkeys of the rich, and that's fine with us Democrats. It keeps us from having to deal with the messy particulars of keeping that engine running and allows us to wallow in our benevolence.
Pulling in just one direction is always easier than having the full weight of responsibility to regulate the entire system; and with Republicans as they stand in the picture, Democrats have the better side.
If Republicans went Full Retard in the direction of absolute socialism rather than being retards for absolute capitalism, being a Democrat would be a lot less fun.

Anyway, dgingeri, you have things backwards when it comes to aristocratic rule. With "rich" being defined relatively, the rich are in the minority pretty much by definition, and it is they who need the government to give force to the system of property rights they leverage.
The majority doesn't need the government around to give them power: they always have the potential; the question is whether they are aroused enough to exercise it.
If the majority wants to redistribute wealth, it doesn't matter if their government system won't let them. If they're set on the idea, they'll overthrow the government and then redistribute wealth over the rich's dead bodies.

So, you see, the socialistic side caters to the People's power. The capitalistic side is about the government's power over the people.
The capitalistic side says, "You may not touch anything belonging to the rich under penalty of death backed by the full and unyielding power of the government." With a degree of socialism added in that changes to, "Ok, if the majority agree, the government will yield to that and siphon some off to get things back into balance."

To give the people power over the government serves as a release valve. Otherwise the people have no recourse but to revolt to rectify imbalance.

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/15/2010 12:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
A pants-off, anything goes, try-anything and let the system decide system? That's insanely liberal.

Uh, no. I don't know what you think you were just describing - as it doesn't exist anywhere, except maybe Somalia - but it certainly wasn't anything resembling a conservative/Republican ideal.

RE: No facts given in letter
By DominionSeraph on 10/15/2010 4:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
Not been to Wall Street lately, have you?

RE: No facts given in letter
By ekv on 10/15/2010 2:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
As if Wall Street is the Conservative Ideal? How much did Goldman Sachs et al. lavish on / contribute towards the current administration? How do you think that so-called Wall Street reform legislation even got off the ground?

RE: No facts given in letter
By dgingeri on 10/15/2010 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think you have things backwards. That is what the liberal side is in theory, but reality is far, far from what they say.

1. the ecological drive is led by people who want to destroy industry and bring the masses back to an agrarian society. The power hungry know this and want to use it to gain more power.

2. welfare in its purist form is temporary. its a help for people having problems getting or keeping a job until they can get their life straight. The way the liberal political structure has set it up, it's now a trap that people just can't get out of. They become slaves to the poles, continuing to vote liberal so that they can have a way to survive. There is no way out. If someone on welfare makes some money, then the system takes away more than they make. So, if they start working, then they won't have enough to survive.

A proper "help" system would reduce the amount given by 1/3 to 1/2 of what the recipient would make at a job. So if they go get a job and make $100 a week, their welfare check would only be reduced $60 per week. That would give them both motivation and ability to get out of the system.

The liberal political structure knows this, and they don't want it. They want to keep their slaves at the poles. If it were set up properly, we'd cut welfare spending in half within 5 years, and further in 10. The Democrats just don't want to lose their power.

3. as the liberal slanted media has already shown (especially shown with The View cast walk off just this week) they love free press, as long and you agree with them. They want to censor all conservative media as much as they can. Also, it's been the liberal side that has been trying to censor games over the past decade. they don't believe in freedom. they just use that as an excuse when others use their strategy against them. This is especially shown with gun rights. They want to take away anything that might give citizens equal footing with the government.

4. while many of the republicans out there are of the "no change, god is all" mentality, the majority are not. Change is a good thing, but you can't just throw everything out just for the sake of change. Keep the good things and change the bad. That's the way most republicans think. Most liberals think "change everything because if I don't get what I want, its got to be bad." I definitely want things to change. This country is going downhill fast because of the stupid changes that have been made lately by the liberal politico.

Just watch their actions, not their words. you'll see through the lies if you do. the so called "health care reform" reformed nothing. it created more bureaucratic jobs and addressed none of the problems with the system. they system just accelerated in cost increases, and pretty soon we'll have the choice of paying half our salary for health insurance or having a place to live. I know I can't afford to pay for the crappy insurance they're mandating. Obama campaigned on no tax increases for the middle class, but we already have extra taxes on our health insurance (the very reason I can't get it now) and we'll have substantial increases starting the first of this year. He never intended to let us off without increased taxes.

the liberal political structure is not for freedom, they are for their own aristocracy. They lie and lie and lie and people just fall for it because they want to believe, yet all they do is give away our freedom and power for some future free utopia that will never emerge. History should show us just that.

Is North Korea a free utopia? Is Cuba? Is Venezuela? Is China? Was the USSR? None of them are/were. Liberal political structures always degrade into a totalitarian failure with starving people, bad technology, and a few aristocrats being pampered at the expense of the people. These so called "people's republics" are nothing but aristocracies. The people always suffer from these. Can you name one single successful communist state where the people are actually free?

The few countries where "you get what you work for" have managed to maintain freedom and power for the people. The whole concept of working for a living and keeping the power AWAY from the government is what keeps us free. It takes severe effort and work to maintain that. Although, that effort usually only lasts one generation before it degrades again.

So called "conservative" positions of work to make things better and reward people for working hard are what keeps the power in the hands of the people. That's what drives us forward, gives us better technology, enlightens us to the truth, and betters our lives.

The mentality of "gimme, gimme, gimme" and "I don't want to work" just destroy societies. The liberal push to expand government, give away our power, give away our money that we worked to hard for, and give it away to people unwilling to work for anything continues to destroy this country.

Just look at the country and the economy from the late 1940s and the 1950s, as well as the 1980s and 1990s, it was strong and the country became powerful. We had huge gains in technology. The political structure was more conservative. Then look at the country and the economy of the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the 1930s. The political structure was more liberal. The economy faltered and degraded. The country just about collapsed in the late 70s due to high deficit spending. We're heading there again. It's the Carter era all over again.

It's WORK that makes things better, not taking away from the people who work and giving it to those who don't. Taking away motivation to work just makes more people not work and the whole system is destroyed.

RE: No facts given in letter
By The Raven on 10/15/2010 1:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad I don't have to try and make sense of any of your guys' nonsense. From what I can tell is that you are all right to an extent and that is why I believe in the freedom of all. I am surrounded by intellegent people and I trust you will do the right thing in most cases. That is why I vote Libertarian. With libertarianism, there can't be any conspiracy theory where the gov't is concerned. Because the platform is based on principles where the gov't is at a minimum. Making them relatively powerless to sway the people. And sadly that is exactly why they are not in office. The Reps and Dems do have that power through all their dirty money.

RE: No facts given in letter
By larsonre on 10/15/2010 1:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
You have to wonder why he believes the APS should set up a new interest group when he clearly believes all of the other 100s of scientific groups ALREADY set up to study, discuss, gather data around climate change have got it wrong. Oh, so this new group is going to get it right because of some secret sauce? Gimme a break. He is just going ballistic over petty politics. Does he even have a degree in climate studies? Has he worked in climate modeling? What key part of climate modeling does he have insight into? Nada, zip, no story

RE: No facts given in letter
By GTVic on 10/13/2010 5:04:39 PM , Rating: 5
He is not saying "climate change" is a scam, he is saying that the science is being overrun by fear mongering and profiteering. I don't think there is any doubt that that is exactly what is going on regardless of anyone's stance on the actual danger to the planet.

RE: No facts given in letter
By barjebus on 10/13/2010 5:06:17 PM , Rating: 5
That's the point; he's livid about the lack of real scientific credibility in the field. He never once states his positions because his views are irrelevant in this debate. What he's concerned about is the trillions of dollars that may be spent to rectify this "issue" without serious due diligence being made to ensure we're not just creating giant piles of cash and setting them on fire.

RE: No facts given in letter
By mkrech on 10/13/2010 5:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Harold Lewis's letter contains no specific reasons why he thinks climate change is a scam. It is a fact-less assertion on his part.

Unnecessary. Current AGW theories are without scientific merit. A scientific finding detailing the exact location of "the end of the rainbow" would be realistic.

The letter was not intended to debunk the climate change scam. It was a resignation letter. However, it exposes the blatant disregard of empirical and ethical bounds that pervades the APS. A look at other organizations easily confirms this is not limited to the APS.

RE: No facts given in letter
By homebredcorgi on 10/13/2010 6:13:49 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. Being angry that his opposing views are not being properly heard is fine. Apparently he is angry enough to resign over it. Also fine.

But if you are going to call something a "scam" then you had better have some supportive reasoning - something he did not do at all.

So he read the "Climategate" stuff? The emails that completely exonerated those accused of any wrongdoing? Wow. Sure, some of them were assholes (science has always had them), but that doesn't mean their conclusions were incorrect. This would be akin to resigning from you position in the FBI after you just saw a 9/11 truth website.

Next he says they are being swayed by funding and are trying to make more money. While there might be a select few people way at the top making huge sums of money, climatology and physics still don't really pay all that well given the amount of schooling involved. Sure, science shouldn't be about money or funding, but it is - if he's that old and is still so naive to think that science is some pure ideal pursuit, he has a lot of learning to do. Besides, as a physicist he should know what the funding for String Theory has done to the rest of the physics community, why not resign over that?

To summarize: He is angry that his suggestion for a new meeting wasn't taken seriously or done fast enough, that scientists are being drawn to fields that have funding (gasp) and that he read some leaked emails - taken way out of context and interpreted by non-scientists - and suddenly it's all a scam.

All in all, this guy resigned from a scientific group. It has absolutely no bearing on his very long career in physics and will have relatively little risk on his part - don't make him out to be some courageous person over this.

RE: No facts given in letter
By clovell on 10/14/2010 1:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
The weren't completely exonerated. They were reprimanded for not working with people who understand advanced modelling and statistics better.

He resigned because the group no longer supported open academic discussion and debate.

RE: No facts given in letter
By DominionSeraph on 10/15/2010 12:00:20 AM , Rating: 1
Being critiqued on something aside from the charge is not the same as failing to be exonerated.


"Clovell is stupid"

Anti global warming nuts: "DominionSeraph is only saying that because he's a shill for the global warming conspiracy after being paid trillions and trillions of dollars to become one."

An investigation will show that I'm not even a millionaire and that my meager income comes from pedestrian sources. But if there are any intellectuals in the panel you can bet they'll try to demonstrate their intellectual superiority in some way. It's just what we do. So we may have something like:

Investigators: Ok, we find the charges completely false. But as an aside, you could've been more diplomatic about how you went about saying clovell is stupid. If you had done so we might have avoided this entire mess.

Dominionseraph: Yes, but I am under no obligation to cater to the reactions of retards, now am I? I felt like being a dick, and I went with it.

Investigators: Yes, it is true that that was your prerogative. We wouldn't have done that, though.

DominionSeraph: Personal opinions noted.

Investigators: Also, you forgot the period in, "Clovell is stupid."

DominionSeraph: Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/15/2010 12:21:59 AM , Rating: 2
The CRU was found to not have done anything that could result in charges pressed against anyone involved. The review specifically stated that it did NOT examine their work; that was outside the scope of their review.

Their "exoneration" merely means none of them will serve jailtime. Which is why it's such a strawman to claim they were "exonerated"... in the context of this discussion, the concern is their work, not their incarceration. Their work should still be held suspect.

RE: No facts given in letter
By DominionSeraph on 10/15/2010 4:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[97]

Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[13]

Independent Climate Change Email Review
In July 2010, the British investigation comissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, and announced in December 2009, published its final report saying it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[15] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[9]

RE: No facts given in letter
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 5:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
climatology and physics still don't really pay all that well given the amount of schooling involved.

So you agree that they have the motive to cheat.

Global Warming?
By Jackattak on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Global Warming?
By ZachDontScare on 10/13/2010 4:52:08 PM , Rating: 4
Well, of course they had to change the name, given that it stopped warming.

With the new name, 'climate change', they can then blame ANY event on it, and demand more research money. Things getting hotter? See, thats CLIMATE CHANGE! Things getting cooler? Thats CLIMATE CHANGE TOO. In fact, the only thing that cant be blamed on it would be if the climate stayed exactly the same - something its never done in 4 billion years.

RE: Global Warming?
By kattanna on 10/13/2010 5:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
problem is your both wrong and behind the times.

its now "climate disruption"

RE: Global Warming?
By JonB on 10/13/2010 5:54:28 PM , Rating: 3
and soon it will be "climate unpredictability."

Like it ever was predictable.

RE: Global Warming?
By SPOOFE on 10/13/2010 6:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
No one in the science field calls it "global warming" anymore.

As if there was anything "scientific" behind the claims of AGW advocates.

RE: Global Warming?
By AmericanEntropy7 on 10/14/2010 12:16:30 AM , Rating: 2
This statement may seem detached in a sense that it is not countering any present arguments. Nevertheless, I felt it necessary express a viewpoint I hold. To me the argument that humans are changing the climate through the use of fossil fuels is a moot argument. Fossil fuels are a finite source of energy, while the amount of dead organism matter left to discover is unknown, the source itself leads one to think of how finite it is when compared to the source of energy responsible for life on Earth. Given this, why should energy consumption not be weighed as heavily as actual emissions. Will the inability for our society to easily find and use energy not lead to a degradation of quality of life equal to that of a catastrophic climactic event? It is in this thought process that makes me think of what I consume; it is not based on media, politics or any other source with an agenda. (and yes I realize not all green house gases are released by just fossil fuels)

RE: Global Warming?
By sleepeeg3 on 10/14/2010 3:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
"Given this, why should energy consumption not be weighed as heavily as actual emissions." Emissions only matters if you believe the climate change fraud.

"Will the inability for our society to easily find and use energy not lead to a degradation of quality of life equal to that of a catastrophic climactic event?" Yes, quality of life will decline as oil/energy becomes more costly, but as those costs go up, the incentive to search for alternatives goes up. It's called the "invisible hand." The supply of oil is not going to just going to disappear overnight so there will never be a "cataclysm."

Everyone should be required to take an economics class and have so they understand how supply and demand works. Too much emotion and not enough thinking.

The alternative energy technologies out there are many times more expensive than conventional fuels so switching to them now would only drastically lower the quality of life and reduce our ability to pay for research to improve them. That is as close to a cataclysm as you are going to get.

Despite what you hear from the greenies, the costs are not close to conventional technologies or you would be seeing many more alternative energy power plants. There has been some news on a recent wind project that looks promising financially, but it is only on paper now.

RE: Global Warming?
By SPOOFE on 10/14/2010 5:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
This statement may seem detached in a sense that it is not countering any present arguments.

I would hope so, considering that there wasn't any significant argument to counter.

Will the inability for our society to easily find and use energy not lead to a degradation of quality of life equal to that of a catastrophic climactic event?

Talk about moot arguments. If we don't use those resources, we'll definitely have a catastrophe: Billions of people currently alive will no longer be so. Conversely, we've been fed a fairy tail about an "even worse" scenario with the flimsiest of support and a pile of obfuscating bias.

Sorry, bub, but a definite catastrophe is more important to try to avert than a possible catastrophe.

RE: Global Warming?
By larsonre on 10/15/2010 1:44:59 PM , Rating: 1
Excellent point. Combine this article with the two other "related" articles published by "Daily Tech", and then combine that with the fire beathing Al Gore photo and the goofy polar bear photo used to illustrate the article, and all you have is a deeper pile of B.S.

Well, all those who say the science is unbalanced can certainly take refuge in Daily Tech. They won't get there feelings hurt here.

Oh, by the way, your grand children are on the line, and they want to know what you did to mess up the climate so bad. My bet is Daily Tech will want to blame Al Gore.

You people are nuts!
By Belard on 10/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: You people are nuts!
By corduroygt on 10/13/2010 5:11:27 PM , Rating: 5
We all want to conserve the environment. Producing less CO2, does not help this cause in any way or shape.

RE: You people are nuts!
By christojojo on 10/13/2010 5:26:57 PM , Rating: 5
How does making highly toxic and dangerous batteries help the planet. Silicon chips are a huge energy and water resource hog. This tends not to be about caring for the people or planet thing. It tends to be a 'hey we can steer the populace with fear to get the to do what we want sort of thing.' instead of asking for reproducible evidence vague things are pointed to or things you can really prove. This October the 13 in New York is a little cooler than last year; does that mean we are going on a mini-ice age?

I want proof. Not the "the whole world is burning are you happy now type." But good reproducible proof type the is funded by all parties concerned to make it the least partisan as possible.

I am sick of the green products that are just relabeled from the last marketing stint. I want to see energy savings as a plus to me economically and socially Fewer recharges on my battery because it uses energy more efficiently.

I really am just sick of the "if you love your family you will take them to Disney world before the world ends" sort of marketed political tripe this has become.

RE: You people are nuts!
By FITCamaro on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: You people are nuts!
By FITCamaro on 10/13/2010 5:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not*

RE: You people are nuts!
By JediJeb on 10/13/2010 7:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
I laugh at those commercials touting you can save $400 in water over the lifetime of the washing machine using the $1000 unit versus the cheaper one. So if you bought anything under $600 you would actually save more money than buying the $1000 one, which so many people just can't figure out these days.

RE: You people are nuts!
By christojojo on 10/13/2010 8:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Since I avoid as much electronic stuff in my washer and dryer I really don't pay much attention to it. After you pointed it out I wish I had because you made such a great point for my argument.

RE: You people are nuts!
By JediJeb on 10/13/2010 9:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm the same, my washer only has hot warm cold, wash, spin rinse and water level dials I think. Dryer is similar. Though when the weather is nice I avoid using the dryer and hang as much as I can outside to dry. Not really trying to save the planet as much as to save money, but since in this case both go hand in hand, why not.

RE: You people are nuts!
By christojojo on 10/13/2010 10:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not really trying to save the planet as much as to save money, but since in this case both go hand in hand, why not.

That's where I start to look at the motivations of the players in this warming stuff. Who benefits and how? I don't believe it is to save us. If it was their would be better use of the laws and regulations we have. Case in point, food poisoning these laws passed for our benefit decades ago and now we have tainted food sold to us, our pets, etc. I am waiting on the PR folks to blame it on climate change instead of political priorities change that it tends to be.

RE: You people are nuts!
By AFMatt on 10/13/2010 11:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I buy those overpriced washers or anything.. I believe the problem is, and may not likely be for long, people have only ever been motivated by seeing a $ sign. Over the past 10+ years what have we seen on every washer, dryer, water heater, etc? Big yellow stickers telling us how much $$$ we would save if we bought it. Now in this day and age they are slowly but surely changing their marketing to hype the "green" aspect of it.

Saving $4 in water is translated into saving x gallons of water, thus saving our natural environment. There are plenty of places in our country that struggle with water shortage problems year after year. Just think of how crappy the water situation could be if we didn't have all these fancy expensive washers being bought up for the past few years.

The problem is, if they were truly concerned with the environment instead of making the big $$$ off the scare, they would stop ripping people off with the jacked up prices on these things.

RE: You people are nuts!
By surt on 10/13/2010 5:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ozone days and the ozone hole are unrelated, other than by the ozone. The ozone hole is a problem with a LOW level of ozone in the upper atmosphere to block UV. This is a problem mainly for the deep southern hemisphere. Unless you are living in southern Chile, this is a non-issue for you.

Ozone days, on the other hand, are days when ground level ozone pollution from cars and trucks reaches hazardously HIGH levels.

So just to be clear: one is a problem with too LITTLE ozone, the other is with too MUCH ozone.

RE: You people are nuts!
By dgingeri on 10/13/2010 6:04:50 PM , Rating: 5
I have never, and will never, promote that pollution has any benefit. I live in Colorado. I know the beauty of nature. All I have to do is look west to see some of the most beautiful landscapes I have ever seen. I also get to live under a big brown cloud during the winter time.

Day after day, I hear about mandates on additives to gas to improve the brown cloud, and day after day I see the reports on the air quality being very low on CO and Nitrogen oxides, while being very high on particulates. Day after day I notice that the brown cloud is the same color as the sand they put on the streets when it snows. I think to myself "why don't they realize that this brown cloud is because they are putting sand on the streets, ground up by cars into fine dust and blown into the air, and not the quality of gasoline?" I think to myself "why are they not doing anything to stop the pollution of our air, and the uglyness of our view to the mountains, when all it would take would be to ban putting sand on the streets?"

It's all the same reason: people in power want more power, and they'll blame whatever they can to promote a problem that would give them more power.

I find it funny that dioxin levels are lower in refinery rain runoff water (by federal mandate) than Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Yet people continue to blame refineries for polluting. (Refineries in the US are so well run these days that they recycle almost everything, and rarely have any impact on the surrounding areas other than an ugly view.)

So many people go blaming things for pollution and other problems simply because the media tells them to. they don't look at the real data and decide for themselves where the problems come from. So many people are just sheep led to the water that the media and politicians want them to drink. They never know that there is better, sweeter water just over the hill. They just never go looking.

I hate pollution, and I don't want it in my state. Colorado is such a beautiful state, I want to keep it pristine. I want to keep my view of the mountains as I go to work.

the problem is that there are just too many people on this world. Too many stupid, stupid people.

The solution to most of the problems of this planet is to just stop reproducing so much. Have one kid, no more. Maybe two if you are smart and successful. Stupid people should be allowed to reproduce at all. Stick together with marriage so that the kids that do come around grow up in a good family environment and have positive role models, and not an absent single parent that they aren't even sure loves them. (We have enough sociopaths, for crying out loud.)

Above all, we need to stop these stupid single women having 5 or 6 kids they can't care for from 5 or 6 different stupid, absent fathers. That is just stupidity on a massive, destructive scale. The world today is just breeding stupidity.

RE: You people are nuts!
By zozzlhandler on 10/13/2010 6:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
But dude, think about what you are advocating from an evolutionary point of view. If all the good people (like you) have less kids, the bad people will outbreed you and you will become extinct. Nearly all the limits to grows and ZPG ideas suffer from this fundamental, fatal flaw.

RE: You people are nuts!
By FITCamaro on 10/13/2010 8:29:40 PM , Rating: 3
At least in the US, many of our problems would be solved if the government was less involved. People used to mainly only have kids when they could afford them and wanted them. Now that the government has stepped in, children have become potential paychecks for the uneducated. Cut that off, and people will stop having kids they can't afford. Because parents of children will make damn sure their kids don't have kids since they will be the ones who have to pay for and take care of them, like it used to be.

As far as illegals, enforce the borders, and you largely solve that problem too. I will never advocate for population control. But our problems are largely due to government over-involvement in the home and a lack of enforcing our laws.

RE: You people are nuts!
By Denigrate on 10/13/2010 8:44:34 PM , Rating: 2

RE: You people are nuts!
By dgingeri on 10/14/2010 10:08:51 AM , Rating: 2