Global Warming

[Deppo]

Of course it will be. St George posts facts - Climate Comrades hate that.

 

You aren't even that daft, dune. He largely posts opinion pieces from various websites and newspapers. The facts that he does post do not prove anything - he infers the rest. That makes it opinion. I could take the same facts and infer the opposite argument. Stop being silly, dune. You're brighter than that. And stop squinnying about abuse. That is a clear sign that you are running into a corner if that is your first defence.

[badgerx16]

Badger can you explain to us why all this cold weather means it's getting warmer despite the CRU citing mild winters as a clear indicator of global warming?

I could quote you, ( again ! ), chapter and verse, but you would simply dismiss it, as you have always done.

[View From The Top]

LMAO.....watching the hand wringers back track on here is nothing short of hilarious.....great entertainment chaps, I knew y'all wouldn't let me down...keep it up :)

 

Note the comedy input from the infamous CRU lol .....No wonder they had to start cooking the books a few years later lol

 

Oh how they changed their tune in just 10 short years Monday, 20 March 2000

 

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

 

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

 

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

 

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

 

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

 

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

 

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

 

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

 

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

 

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

 

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

 

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

 

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

 

Does that not exactly prove that we are not used to extreame weather anymore hence the shutdown that happens when we do get it. QED, they're correct.

 

How many of us can remember an extended period of such weather, in December? I certainly can't.

 

How many of us can remember so much snow in December? I can't.

[aintforever]

There is no denying that scientists are not great at predicting weather, especially a long time in advance - it's not a great deal to do with global warming though as this year is still due to be one of the hottest on record.

 

Our current cold weather is due to the Atlantic high pressure and changes in the jet stream, the world in not colder, just cold air is moving to a different place than usual. If anything we should be more concerned with climate change than before IMO. God knows what it will be like in January when it usually gets really cold.

[Verbal]

There is just something so downright odd about a climate change sceptic coming from New Orleans - the Atlantis de nos jours.

[badgerx16]

Weather is local, climate is global. Whilst we may be experiencing record low temperatures, much of the northern hemisphere has unseasonal warmth. Net, the world is warmer than is might have been historically at this time of year.

[dubai_phil]

http://en.news.maktoob.com/20090000538780/2010_s_world_gone_wild_Quakes_floods_blizzards/Article.htm?utm_campaign=Night-Newsletter&utm_medium=Main-News3&utm_source=Night-Newsletter&utm_content=

 

Now THAT is an interesting article. Earth strikes back.

 

As for my input on the debate, I go way back to the TV series & book that first got me interested in The Weather. Time Magazine decided we were all going to freeze to death back then in the 70's and today we are all going to fry.

 

The weather ALWAYS changes, every day, we need to understand that global warming may move the Jetstream or the gulf stream or el nino and make UK colder or Dubai wetter while roasting the Aussies.

 

I reckon you guys should start to worry about how to cope with Glaciers forming in the South Downs.

 

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/calder.context.html

 

In "The Weather Machine" BBC Publications 1974 p. 134 I [Nigel Calder] wrote:

"Going by past form, the warm periods between ice ages last about 10,000 years and ours has lasted 10,000 years. One might therefore argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next two thousand years. Then the odds are only about 20 to 1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

I would not change a word of this, 25 years on. It arose partly from the first formal confirmation of the Milankovitch effect (which I published in Nature) and partly from testimony by leading climate experts of the day. George Kukla of Cornell/Lamont said in the TV version of The Weather Machine:

"... And the warm periods are much shorter than we believed originally. They are something around 10,000 years long, and I'm sorry to say that the one we are living in now has just passed its 10,000-year birthday. That of course means that the ice age is due now any time."

There was also a shift in ideas about how ice ages started, with Hubert Lamb and Alastair Woodroffe (1970) arguing that ice sheets grew from the bottom up rather than spreading slowly as glaciers from a mountainous centre. I called this concept the "snowblitz" because of the sudden chilling of huge areas by unmelted snow which it implied. It gave a sharper meaning to the idea of the onset of an ice age.

By the way, the IPCC accepts that a steady Milankovitch cooling is in progress, as part of its otherwise rather selective climatological background for discussing current fluctuations. And Milankovitch is nowadays used to date the comings and goings of the ice more reliably than sedimentation rates do -- something I suggested in my Nature paper.

I've just found an offprint of a Royal Institution lecture "Shall We Fry or Freeze?" where I said:

"The chances of a drastic cooling occurring in our lifetime are small - a good deal less, no doubt, than the risk of the man-made disaster of nuclear war - but the risk is not zero ..."

I don't have the year or volume number of their publication, but the page number is p. 253. I think it was 1980 or 81, something like that.

More amusingly on RI p. 254 I noted the wide awareness of the new climatology at that time: "A New Yorker cartoon depicts the typical grouchy New York drinking man saying to the typical patient bar-tender, 'And what did we *do* with our ten-thousand-year warm spell between ice ages? Nothing.'"

[Whitey Grandad]

Too many people. Simple as that.

[No 2 to Maybush]

Weather is local, climate is global. Whilst we may be experiencing record low temperatures, much of the northern hemisphere has unseasonal warmth. Net, the world is warmer than is might have been historically at this time of year.

 

Care to clarify which parts in particular? Are you talking about the North American landmass, or the European/Asian landass, or both?

 

Thanks.

[Sheaf Saint]

Care to clarify which parts in particular? Are you talking about the North American landmass, or the European/Asian landass, or both?

 

Thanks.

 

According to the weather reports last night, Greenland is currently experiencing record high temperatures for this time of year. This is due to the disruption of the jertstream which is pushing the warmer atlantic air currents north towards Greenland instead of towards the UK as it normally does. This is also why we are now getting the cold weather fronts in from the north east instead of the westerly winds that we normally get.

[badgerx16]

Care to clarify which parts in particular? Are you talking about the North American landmass, or the European/Asian landass, or both?

 

Thanks.

Your starter for 10 :- http://www.euronews.net/2010/12/02/while-the-north-freezes-greeks-go-to-the-beach/

 

And the current weather was forecast by some in October :

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINTRE69O1OX20101025?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a54:g12:r1:c0.498975:b38857462:z3

 

A global perspective on the current weather patterns: http://www.walker-institute.ac.uk/news/Dec_2010/

( original images from NASA are found here : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/ )

Edited 21 December, 2010 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

Care to clarify which parts in particular? Are you talking about the North American landmass, or the European/Asian landass, or both?

 

Thanks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-uk-may-be-cold-but-its-still-a-warm-world-says-met-office-chief-2165492.html

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/18999_nunavik_experiences_record_high_temps_in_december/

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/dec/20/weather-records-tumble-in-west-texas/

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/VVOS-8BXLKG?OpenDocument

[Wade Garrett]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-uk-may-be-cold-but-its-still-a-warm-world-says-met-office-chief-2165492.html

 

So these experts brush off the freezing weather in the UK and all over Western Europe, but justify global warming by saying it is a bit warmer in Greenland.

 

Talk about being selective to justify your argument.

[badgerx16]

So these experts brush off the freezing weather in the UK and all over Western Europe, but justify global warming by saying it is a bit warmer in Greenland.

 

Talk about being selective to justify your argument.

But that isn't what it says, is it ! It says "A "blocking" high pressure over the North Atlantic has been a recurring feature of the current cold spell, which has split the path of the high-altitude jetstream, sending warmer weather to Greenland and allowing bitterly cold winds from the Arctic to spread across Britain and Europe."

 

Do try harder.

[Wade Garrett]

But that isn't what it says, is it ! It says "A "blocking" high pressure over the North Atlantic has been a recurring feature of the current cold spell, which has split the path of the high-altitude jetstream, sending warmer weather to Greenland and allowing bitterly cold winds from the Arctic to spread across Britain and Europe."

 

Do try harder.

 

F*ck off you patronising c*nt.

 

I have a different opinion than you have. I remember scientists telling us a few years ago that we would have a Spanish climate in the UK in 20 years time. I believe that climate change occurs naturally on Earth, and history seems to bear me out. You have a different opinion than me, but that's all they are, opinions.

[dubai_phil]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-And-Ice-Aviation-Expert-David-Learmount-Says-Britains-Climate-Makes-Airports-Hazardous/Article/201012315863350?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15863350_Snow_And_Ice%3A_Aviation_Expert_David_Learmount_Says_Britains_Climate_Makes_Airports_Hazardous

 

Towards the end of the article with a nice map!

Meanwhile, Nasa has been explaining why the UK has been hit by the recent cold snaps.

It said the Gulf Stream, which usually brings mild air from the Mexican Gulf to the British Isles, has shifted from its usual path due to a belt of high pressure sitting in the mid-Atlantic.

This Negative Arctic Oscillation has forced the stream further north, leaving western Canada and southern Greenland in unusually warm weather while Ireland, the UK and Northern Europe are freezing cold.

Nasa has released an image shows the temperature of the land surface for December 3-10, 2010, compared to the average temperature for the same period between 2002 and 2009.

 

Realx, Just everyone has to start packing and move to a nice warm beachfront property in Greenland

[Sheaf Saint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-uk-may-be-cold-but-its-still-a-warm-world-says-met-office-chief-2165492.html

 

So these experts brush off the freezing weather in the UK and all over Western Europe, but justify global warming by saying it is a bit warmer in Greenland.

 

Talk about being selective to justify your argument.

 

Like many others before you on this thread, you are making the mistake of confusing short-term weather patterns with long-term climate change. The current cold spell is due to the disruption to the jetstream, allowing colder arctic winds to blow over the UK which they normally can't do. This disruption to the jetstream could possibly become a recurring phenomenon as a result of the changing climate.

 

If you read the article thoroughly you will understand that Professor Slingo is absolutely not "justifying global warming by saying it is a bit warmer in Greenland" as you so crudely put it.

[Wade Garrett]

Like many others before you on this thread, you are making the mistake of confusing short-term weather patterns with long-term climate change. The current cold spell is due to the disruption to the jetstream, allowing colder arctic winds to blow over the UK which they normally can't do. This disruption to the jetstream could possibly become a recurring phenomenon as a result of the changing climate.

 

If you read the article thoroughly you will understand that Professor Slingo is absolutely not "justifying global warming by saying it is a bit warmer in Greenland" as you so crudely put it.

 

Jesus wept, you are an intolerant lot. I don't believe climate change is man made, I believe it occurs naturally. You have a different opinion.

 

Even scientists and experts are split on it.

 

I am educated enough to make up my own mind on issues like this.

[buctootim]

Jesus wept, you are an intolerant lot. I don't believe climate change is man made, I believe it occurs naturally. You have a different opinion.

 

Even scientists and experts are split on it.

 

I am educated enough to make up my own mind on issues like this.

 

Lolz. You misrepresent a simple article, when somebody points that out you call them a ****ing patronising **** - and we are the intolerant ones. And, no, scientists arent split on it. Climate change is almost totally universally accepted now by anyone who has read the data and understands the issues.

[Wade Garrett]

Lolz. You misrepresent a simple article, when somebody points that out you call them a ****ing patronising **** - and we are the intolerant ones. And, no, scientists arent split on it. Climate change is almost totally universally accepted now by anyone who has read the data and understands the issues.

 

So now if you oppose the theory of man made climate change you haven't read the data or you don't understand the issues. As I said, you are an intolerant lot.

 

This is a fairly good article that gives a different point of view

http://sc25.com/index.php?id=10

[badgerx16]

F*ck off you patronising c*nt.

Calm down, it's only an Internet forum.

 

Jeez !

[badgerx16]

This is a fairly good article that gives a different point of view

http://sc25.com/index.php?id=10

If you can bear to have your posting countered without blowing your top :

"In 2008 Corbyn went even further than being skeptical, and took an absolutist, certain position by stating, ... "CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so." ... a level of certainty that many in the scientific community find logically unsupportable"

[Wade Garrett]

Calm down, it's only an Internet forum.

 

Jeez !

 

Fair enough.

 

I got an infraction for my efforts as well. Steve Grant must believe in man made climate change, either that or he punished me for being rude and insulting.

[buctootim]

So now if you oppose the theory of man made climate change you haven't read the data or you don't understand the issues. As I said, you are an intolerant lot.

 

This is a fairly good article that gives a different point of view

http://sc25.com/index.php?id=10

 

No. I said "Climate change is almost totally universally accepted now by anyone who has read the data and understands the issues". That is a statement of fact. You could do your own research to verify that. Instead what you've done is to post a link to one mans personal website as if that somehow balances out the findings of NASA, the Met Office, the UN, the G20 and almost any other credible body you care to mention. Even Exxon, who for years funded the climate sceptic lobby have accepted man made climate change now.

[Sheaf Saint]

Jesus wept, you are an intolerant lot. I don't believe climate change is man made, I believe it occurs naturally. You have a different opinion.

 

Even scientists and experts are split on it.

 

I am educated enough to make up my own mind on issues like this.

 

I'm not intolerant of your opinions. You didn't state an opinion. You tried to pass off as fact a completely inaccurate statement about the content of the article, and I was just pointing out your error. You claimed that scientists were trying to justify the long-term climate data by pointing towards a short-term weather pattern in the atlantic, and accused them of being selective to justify the argument. As far as I can see, that is not what the article says at all.

 

Sorry I bothered. In future I'll refrain from posting and allow you to continue with your blissful ignorance and your selective understanding (see, works both ways doesn't it)

[View From The Top]

Fair enough.

 

I got an infraction for my efforts as well. Steve Grant must believe in man made climate change, either that or he punished me for being rude and insulting.

 

You're assuming that most believe in man made climate change, which they don't. Most believe that climate change is happening and happen to believe that mans' activities "may" be adding to that change.

[buctootim]

You're assuming that most believe in man made climate change, which they don't. Most believe that climate change is happening and happen to believe that mans' activities "may" be adding to that change.

 

I think most believe the link is stronger than 'may'. However even accepting your analysis Adair Turner - Chairman of the FSA, former Director General of the CBI made a good speech a few years ago. He basically said that faced with a risk of a potentially devasting occurrence, you take steps to protect yourself. The whole insurance industry is based on that premise. The costs to GDP of adopting a low carbon economy are about 0.7% over the next 40 years. ie the world will reach the same standard of living by August 2050 that it would otherwise have reached by March 2050 if it had done nothing at all to protect itself from the risk.

 

A single payment of 0.7% of one years income, and given 40 years to pay seems to me to be a pretty good deal. A lot cheaper than house, car or life insurance.

Edited 21 December, 2010 by buctootim

[Deppo]

Can someone explain to me why, if global warming exists, am I sitting here freezing cold? It makes no sense to me.

[buctootim]

Can someone explain to me why, if global warming exists, am I sitting here freezing cold? It makes no sense to me.

 

You're fat and old and your arteries have hardened. Plus the window is open.

[dune]

Weather is local, climate is global.

 

Both can be local and global because they are both the same thing. If I spend a few in Kartoum acclimatising to the heat i'm getting used to the hot WEATHER. Climate = Weather. You can talk about a wet climate or an arid climate or a micro climate - all terms that describe the weather.

[buctootim]

Both can be local and global because they are both the same thing. If I spend a few in Kartoum acclimatising to the heat i'm getting used to the hot WEATHER. Climate = Weather. You can talk about a wet climate or an arid climate or a micro climate - all terms that describe the weather.

 

Right there is why you cant understand climate change. They arent the same. Weather is what you have at the moment. Climate is what happens over time.

[dune]

Right there is why you cant understand climate change. They arent the same. Weather is what you have at the moment. Climate is what happens over time.

 

Weather patterns can changes over time. Climate can change over time. Weather can be the weather today or tomorrow. Climate can be the cimate today or tomorrow.

[Deppo]

You're fat and old and your arteries have hardened. Plus the window is open.

 

And I guess left wing idiots like you are trying to claim that old age and obesity is directly linkied to man made global warming?

 

Both can be local and global because they are both the same thing. If I spend a few in Kartoum acclimatising to the heat i'm getting used to the hot WEATHER. Climate = Weather. You can talk about a wet climate or an arid climate or a micro climate - all terms that describe the weather.

 

Exactly! Well summed up Dune.

 

Right there is why you cant understand climate change. They arent the same. Weather is what you have at the moment. Climate is what happens over time.

 

No, you don't understand climate change.

 

Weather patterns can changes over time. Climate can change over time. Weather can be the weather today or tomorrow. Climate can be the cimate today or tomorrow.

 

Another good point! Those people who claim climate change is man made and exists should just read this post and then shut up.

[buctootim]

Weather patterns can changes over time. Climate can change over time. Weather can be the weather today or tomorrow. Climate can be the cimate today or tomorrow.

 

Actually I dont care Dune. you arent the kind of person who responds to reasoned argument backed by evidence. You go off happy knowing you've won the argument. Next time you put the climate control on in your car, since climate varies every day, dont be surprised if it chucks out different temperatures every trip.

[buctootim]

And I guess left wing idiots like you are trying to claim that old age and obesity is directly linkied to man made global warming?

 

 

 

Exactly! Well summed up Dune.

 

 

 

No, you don't understand climate change.

 

 

 

Another good point! Those people who claim climate change is man made and exists should just read this post and then shut up.

 

Thanks Deppo. Having you alongside is like having Nigel Farage and Maggie in my team.

[dune]

Actually I dont care Dune. you arent the kind of person who responds to reasoned argument backed by evidence. You go off happy knowing you've won the argument. Next time you put the climate control on in your car, since climate varies every day, dont be surprised if it chucks out different temperatures every trip.

 

Of course it will, it responds to the weather outside which affects the temperature inside.

[buctootim]

Of course it will, it responds to the weather outside which affects the temperature inside.

 

Congratulations Dune. You must be the thickest person on the forum. You've beaten off some stiff competition. Excuse me for not taking up the opportunity to explain the differences between climate control, air conditioning and opening the window.

Edited 21 December, 2010 by buctootim

[No 2 to Maybush]

I found this on the Zerohedge website, where a similar debate is going on. Thought it would be of interest, and makes the most of my 3rd post of the day.

 

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

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

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

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety

Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

[buctootim]

Harold Lewis is an 87 year old retired Nuclear physicist. He worked on anti ship missiles and nuclear reactors and never on any form of natural sciences, let alone climate change. He may or may not be right about the way the American Physical Society is run - I have no idea.

[dune]

Congratulations Dune. You must be the thickest person on the forum. You've beaten off some stiff competition. Excuse me for not taking up the opportunity to explain the differences between climate control, air conditioning and opening the window.

 

You don't have to throw a paddy. Just learn to accept that you're not always right.

[Faz]

Harold Lewis is an 87 year old retired Nuclear physicist. He worked on anti ship missiles and nuclear reactors and never on any form of natural sciences, let alone climate change. He may or may not be right about the way the American Physical Society is run - I have no idea.

 

The point is not whether he has any specialism in Climate Change - the point is that debate is stifled, and the (significant) contrary view is not allowed a voice. One has to ask, why?

[dune]

The point is not whether he has any specialism in Climate Change - the point is that debate is stifled, and the (significant) contrary view is not allowed a voice. One has to ask, why?

 

To put it bluntly the whole Man Made Global Warming con is about scientists/businesses keeping the gravy train going, and Socialists loving the taxation opportunities - the climate change hoax perfectly fits their ideological desire to control. You've also got the cranky left wingers that love a to have a cause to support. If they weren't getting in a tiz over this they'd be out saving whales or living in tree houses on proposed bypass routes.

[buctootim]

The point is not whether he has any specialism in Climate Change - the point is that debate is stifled, and the (significant) contrary view is not allowed a voice. One has to ask, why?

 

Exactly - who would stifle debate and why. Its possible to argue that some orthodoxy of belief might settle amongst climate scientists working in the temperate regions, so that anyone who disputed that orthodoxy would have their career damaged - highly unlikely but possible. But why would Canadian and Russian scientists go along with it - two nations with massive areas of unproductive frozen tundra which would benefit hugely from global warming - and are also major oil and gas exporters? Why would professional bodies such as the Royal Society and American Physical Society stifle debate when they have their reputations to uphold and most of their members have nothing to do with climate change and receive no funding on the issue? Why would Swiss Re and Munich Re - two of the biggest reinsurers demand to know what strategies their insured companies have for reducing carbon intensity? Why would almost all governments, scientists and companies get together worldwide to formulate some kind of global hoax? - joined by even those countries and companies who would gain from a warmer world and lose out from reduced demand for oil gas and coal.

Edited 21 December, 2010 by buctootim

[ericb]

To put it bluntly the whole Man Made Global Warming con is about scientists/businesses keeping the gravy train going, and Socialists loving the taxation opportunities - the climate change hoax perfectly fits their ideological desire to control. You've also got the cranky left wingers that love a to have a cause to support. If they weren't getting in a tiz over this they'd be out saving whales or living in tree houses on proposed bypass routes.

 

That's an interesting idea, except for the fact that those that stand to make the most money out of it; are backed by large private finance to protect interests are the climate change naysayers.

 

Mind you i do have to take my hat off to dune who seems to be one of the single most proficient wind up merchants i've ever come across on internet forums.

 

Whenever i read your posts i'm instantly reminded of this classic Jam sketch -

[dune]

the single most proficient wind up merchants i've ever come across on internet forums.

 

You cheeky ****. These are my views. Eagles fly high and sheep flock together.

[hamster]

You cheeky ****. These are my views. Eagles fly high and sheep flock together.

 

We need them both though Dune, though Eagles are not as useful to the common man as a sheep I'd say.

 

And don;t foget what happened to Icarus when he tried a little too hard to be different and felll to his death. Maybe those sheeps aren;t that stupid after all?

[aintforever]

To put it bluntly the whole Man Made Global Warming con is about scientists/businesses keeping the gravy train going, and Socialists loving the taxation opportunities - the climate change hoax perfectly fits their ideological desire to control. You've also got the cranky left wingers that love a to have a cause to support. If they weren't getting in a tiz over this they'd be out saving whales or living in tree houses on proposed bypass routes.

 

For someone who enjoys shooting holes in other people's theories you amazing fail to see gaping holes in your own.

 

If climate change is some big socialist conspiracy how come all of the World's major countries have signed up to it? And your very own conservative government are about to blow £27billion on thousands of massive off shore windmills, which if what you say is true, would be the same as taking £27billion and setting fire to it.

 

If it's supposed to be the scientists conning everyone you are assuming all the Worlds top scientific bodies are run by evil, lying socialists. Now we all know the most intelligent people are generally left wing but I think you are pushing the theory a bit far there!

 

It appear to me that the only people refusing to accept what is quite obvious are people like you who value money and greed so much they are prepared to ruin the planet over it.

[Faz]

Exactly - who would stifle debate and why. Its possible to argue that some orthodoxy of belief might settle amongst climate scientists working in the temperate regions, so that anyone who disputed that orthodoxy would have their career damaged - highly unlikely but possible. But why would Canadian and Russian scientists go along with it - two nations with massive areas of unproductive frozen tundra which would benefit hugely from global warming - and are also major oil and gas exporters? Why would professional bodies such as the Royal Society and American Physical Society stifle debate when they have their reputations to uphold and most of their members have nothing to do with climate change and receive no funding on the issue? Why would Swiss Re and Munich Re - two of the biggest reinsurers demand to know what strategies their insured companies have for reducing carbon intensity? Why would almost all governments, scientists and companies get together worldwide to formulate some kind of global hoax? - joined by even those countries and companies who would gain from a warmer world and lose out from reduced demand for oil gas and coal.

 

To put it bluntly - research dollars. And I'm not saying it's wrong to strive for alternatives to fossil fuels, or to lower emissions, but that's where the bucks are at the moment. As for the Royal Society, and the APS, it is entirely possioble that some have backed the wrong horse, and seek to protect their position. It wouldn't be the first time - and at those levels it's about reputation. The insurers are backing a one way bet - if man made global warming is indeed true, they win; if it isn't, they haven't lost. Furthermore, it becomes a self re-inforcing proposition. Swiss re say demonstrate you're developing strategies to lower Carbon Intensity, Conglomorate A says we must fund research into this to manage our premiums, Scientist Yuri says of course 'll loolk into this for you.

 

Is the world warming up? Undoubtedly.

Has it been warmer in the past? Seems so.

Has the rate of increase co-incided with increased industrial output? Evidently so.

Are they cause and effect? Don't know.

 

Personally I don't have a scoobie, but I would like the opportunity to hear all sides.

[Sheaf Saint]

To put it bluntly the whole Man Made Global Warming con is about scientists/businesses keeping the gravy train going, and Socialists loving the taxation opportunities - the climate change hoax perfectly fits their ideological desire to control.

 

OK dune, let's for one moment, hypothetically, assume that you are right and that Climate change is just one big hoax invented by socialists in order to impose higher taxes on everyone. How do you explain this?

 

You've also got the cranky left wingers that love a to have a cause to support. If they weren't getting in a tiz over this they'd be out saving whales or living in tree houses on proposed bypass routes.

 

But then you've always got frothing right-wingers reading their copy of the daily Mail and getting all uptight about immigration and getting in a tiz about

scrounging benefit cheats. See what I've done there?

 

It is testament to your true character that you are unable to grasp the basic concepts that people point out, and unwilling to address the actual points raised and instead resort to pathetic stereotyping.

[aintforever]

Personally I don't have a scoobie, but I would like the opportunity to hear all sides.

 

You already are, just like you are hearing all sides to the 'smoking might cause cancer' and "the earth might be round' debate.

 

There is every motivation in the world for scientists to disprove the man made climate change theory. If someone could find conclusive proof that it's not man made they would save the world billions, win a nobel prize and make themselves very very rich.