[admin]

From the Telegraph

http://blogs.telegra...enile-old-fool/

Professor Hal Lewis is not an irrelevant, senile, old fool

When Professor Hal Lewis wrote his now-famous letter of resignation to the American Physical Society earlier this week, climate change alarmists were quick to respond with their usual wit, aplomb and generosity. Here were some of the excuses they offered as to why this terrible man must at all costs not be taken seriously.

1. Professor Hal Lewis is a physicist not a climate scientist and therefore unqualified to comment on climate science.

2. He’s old. Old people are, like, really senile.

3. We haven’t heard of him before. How can what he say matters if we haven’t heard of him before?

4. He’s probably just some shill for Big Oil, like all the other deniers.

5. He hasn’t published enough papers, so he’s hardly a real scientist

6. OK, so maybe there’s a possibility he’s not senile, but he’s definitely too old to have stayed in touch with all the zippy modern climate stuff that the experts at places like RealClimate know about.

Read the rest at the above link

[John Mason]

Quote

snow hope - 18/10/2010 09:23 That may be your understanding John, but needless to say I think that is really quite unfair to Lewis...... I am surprised you say that of another scientist to be honest.

Well, Michael, I invite you to point out where there is any climate science in his letter or in any of his other output? I sure as hell cannot find any! It is political gameplay, no more, no less.

Cheers - John 

[admin]

John, he's a scientist, wasn't it you that was saying about scientists, whatever their field are above us mere mortals when it comes to commenting on climate science? Can we discuss why we think a long standing scientist has distanced himself from climate science, rather than trying to dissect the man himself?

[John Mason]

He's gotten very political compared to most scientists I know - perhaps he fancied a new career in his retirement?

Anyway, nobody seems interested in his claim of "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."

One has to check these things out.

The entire GDP of the United States is ~14 trillion dollars, BTW....

Cheers - John 

[admin]

Quote

John Mason - 18/10/2010 09:42

He's gotten very political compared to most scientists I know - perhaps he fancied a new career in his retirement?

You know him John? you should of mentioned it earlier [dunno]
 

[John Mason]

Quote

Dave Clarke - 18/10/2010 09:45

Quote

John Mason - 18/10/2010 09:42

He's gotten very political compared to most scientists I know - perhaps he fancied a new career in his retirement?

You know him John? you should of mentioned it earlier [dunno]

Sorry - I thought it might lead to accusations of bias :D

Cheers - John 

[Anabolic North]

Look guys...it is not worth arguing over anymore. The whole global warming/AGW debate is complete pants and frankly not worthy of discussion.

There simply is no such thing.

I don't consider it a worthy subject for my attention anymore. Let brainwashed talk to themselves.

[John Mason]

Quote

Convective North - 18/10/2010 16:47 Look guys...it is not worth arguing over anymore. The whole global warming/AGW debate is complete pants and frankly not worthy of discussion. There simply is no such thing. I don't consider it a worthy subject for my attention anymore. Let brainwashed talk to themselves.

That's us telt ;)

cheers - John 

[John Mason]

Quote

Chris Lloyd - 18/10/2010 17:40 Well it does go on and on, and as a scientist John you do seem to shout the loudest over these issues.

Forgive me Chris - I have been in Rottweiler mode all day! How goes the garden?

Cheers - John 

[admin]

Can we try and keep on topic, thanks :)

[EllyTech]

Quote

David Clarke - 18/10/2010 09:26

"This has politics written all over it" In your opinion John.

I would like to make a sizable addition to the opinion of the involvement of Politics:


If this is so, can I add the thought that politics can now be seen as an underpin from every 'ascribed' member of the mainstream Climate Science fraternity - those that wish to break ground with independent research are now tethered by controlled funding structures...

The only fair-ground to debate a point that this scientist is making, is by using the normal route of judgement: Either of falsification of his evidence through examining the existing science upon which this is all based or, by finding support and agreement, through judgement of what is produced for us to examine. There are difficulties for us here, as is with evaluation of the material from IPCC: The very weighty (by comparison) amount of publications that are viewable, relate to how our climate can be altered by ppm of C02.

Even to a layman - me - there seems a terribly obvious block from seeing all the information; a deliberate amnesia of proven errors (errors which have been admitted to), within the underpinning model predictions. We (most of the public) are not able to see clear history of such - anywhere.

The longer one has had experience in any field of science, the more they could see the need to question why the world should carry on with the proposed C02 cuts which splice across our lives politically, socially and make every individual follow along with the crusade to stop the climate changing - "whatever the cost may be" (Winston Churchill).

IMO. Evaluation of Climate Change and its effect on 'Policy' is not confined to academic evaluation from Climate Scientists'. Neither is a world war any longer confined to one General to evaluate as, in living memory of our generations, echoed experience of such gives ALL of us a credible voice in opposition to any such devastation happening again. This General would have to persuade a whole government before taking up arms. His success would be based only upon peer agreement.

It might be said; that it takes very little bravery from the naive to call foul - and the experienced tread more carefully. So, for somebody this learned to speak up where he saw necessary and preempt the consequences, would have taken much deliberation on his part - imo.

_If you stick your neck out, the consequences are that your head might get chopped off._

So, Hal is just one weak man with one weak argument. (?) What possible need would anyone have to rubbish him? Surely his words are seem as so lame that they will soon be forgotten?

[John Mason]

On the contrary, Elly, I see this as the biggest emergency that Mankind in its currently organised state has ever faced, the problem being the inertia it generates as a consequence of its typically multidecadal nature. That is way outside of most peoples' circles of reference. That is key to the nature of the beast, as deadly serious as any you will see in your lifetime, and outside of that all I can say is "thank God I do not have kids".

Cheers - John 

[EllyTech]

Quote

John Mason - 18/10/2010 19:27

On the contrary, Elly, I see this as the biggest emergency that Mankind in its currently organised state has ever faced, the problem being the inertia it generates as a consequence of its typically multidecadal nature. That is way outside of most peoples' circles of reference. That is key to the nature of the beast, as deadly serious as any you will see in your lifetime, and outside of that all I can say is "thank God I do not have kids".

Cheers - John 

What is 'wrong' with all this will eventually find judgement. Not until what is 'wrong' is found, will 'right' have clear passage. imo. :)

[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

To some degree I have to agree with John. There was no logical or technical refuting of the stance of the APS. It was more of the expression of an opinion and the disagreement that there is a lack of a balanced approach being taken within the APS.

On the other hand, Dr. Lewis was calling for a Topical Review similar to a Royal Society debate. For the APS to deny the option when it is clear that the science is still out speaks volumes about the position of the APS. It also goes further to suggest that the APS are concerned with getting any of the Yuck of a out and out Cow-Patty fight on them.

The idea that if you give a voice to the opposition of the leading publicly known scientists in the APS you are also casting a pall upon the APS for holding these illustrious public figures in high esteem. The idea of honor or respect and esteem is a minor issue; but, it is an issue.

Total it up and there is a lot of political posturing here. If there were a reasonable hope of establishing a debate it might have been better to form a group to challenge the APS directly. Trying to work from within and deal with the politics is a long and often ugly road. Sometimes confrontation is the shortest path, though it has the greatest tendency to open up wounds that are long in healing. This looks like it requires more of a political response then to be played out in the press. Taking on the leadership of the APS would be a good start. The press play can be part of the game; however, it is unlikely to be any part of the development or discovery of the truth

Hence, if Politics is the Game, then Politics should be played. If Facts and Truth is the game then the Truth will out, you simply have to develop it... I am afraid what we have here a game rather then a search for truth...

Cheers!
Dave Cooke

[admin]

Most people don’t know who Dr. Hal Lewis is. He’s a quiet man, and he hasn’t sought publicity in his career. He was a student of Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, and was active in the field of nuclear power plant safety, where being wrong has grave consequences. He’s an emeritus professor of physics and a former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and he worked with noted climatologist Stephen Schneider when he chaired a 1985 task force on nuclear winter.

In short, he’s no lightweight, and he’s well respected in the field of physics.

Dr. Lewis and 260 other members of APS signed a petition, and battled within the organization, following the rules, in an attempt to get the APS position statement on global warming considered for revision. The effort was ignored, stonewalled, and rebuked. After years of trying, he finally had enough.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/18/an-act-of-scientific-defiance-in-the-face-of-consensus/#ixzz12o5j2T8r

 

[Duncan Railton]

There are too many people failing to be polite and throwing around rude or snide comments in this thread. Rather than go through and remove them, I'm freezing the thread.