Top Scientist Exposes Climate Change Fraud

[Job8]

The Christian Science Monitor has called this "A Martin Luther Moment". Physicist Hal Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over this fraud back in 2010.

CSM described Hal Lewis as an "esteemed physicist" who has called global warming "the most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have ever seen".

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…

Physicist Will Harper from Princeton in his testimony to Cogress said:

There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree.

So this is another big scam being perpetrated from the top. And Lewis says it is because of "the money flood". There are many other scientists who agree with his conclusions. And prospective President Donald Trump also agrees.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ter-a-Martin-Luther-moment-in-science-history.
http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...te-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1/#eeman-dyson-1

 

[ken777]

It is worth researching what an increase of one degree would mean for the planet.

 

[imind]

17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

bold mine. are we pretending this happened recently?
EDITED TO ADD: sorry, didn't see that you acknowledged the date in the OP...i don't see though why the thread is relevant now as his concerns have been thoroughly answered.

the aps responded...

In his letter, Lewis speculated that Council’s policy positions on climate change must be driven by financial interest, adding that Callan’s own physics department “would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst”. The APS press release categorically rejected the notion that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding and further pointed out that the vast majority of the Society’s members do not work on climate and derive no personal benefit from such research support.


Callan, in his reply, criticized Lewis’s speculation about the role of financial interest in determining the attitude of physicists to climate change as unacceptably disrespectful of the intellectual integrity of his scientific colleagues. He also noted that Lewis’s statement about the reliance of Callan’s department on climate science funding was wrong, as the actual level of such funding was precisely zero.

bold mine

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The canary in the coal mine is ocean temps and acidity. Atmospheric data is just confusing.

 

[tulc]

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201011/memberresigns.cfm

“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; … On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. .. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’s claim that global warming is a ‘scam’ and a ‘pseudoscientific fraud’.”

and this:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/10/hal-lewiss-temper-tantrum.html

Let's note that Lewis's resignation letter does not give even one fundamental reason why modern climate science should be considered wrong. His complaints are all about secret committees and underhanded negotiations. Which is what you'd expect a long-term techno-bureaucrat to complain about.

I'm sure Dr Lewis deserves some respect. But his opinion on climate science does not. Let's move along.

tulc(is moving on now)

 

[SnowyMacie]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Population reduction from war, famine, and disease are our only hope (I take no joy in stating this).

 

[PapaZoom]

That actually begs the question because it assumes that which it attempts to prove.

 

[Stillicidia]

Climate change, toothpaste, electric cars, no cure for cancer, evolution 'facts', all lies.

 

[SnowyMacie]

That actually begs the question because it assumes that which it attempts to prove.

That we will have a better world if we switch to clean, renewable energy? Even if you don't believe in climate change, fossil fuels still cause pollution and aren't going to last forever.

 

[PapaZoom]

That we will have a better world if we switch to clean, renewable energy? Even if you don't believe in climate change, fossil fuels still cause pollution and aren't going to last forever.

I would agree if it was that simple.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I would agree if it was that simple.

The comic is that simple.

 

[PapaZoom]

The comic is that simple.

It's pie in the sky and then in your eye. It's a flawed premise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That we will have a better world if we switch to clean, renewable energy? Even if you don't believe in climate change, fossil fuels still cause pollution and aren't going to last forever.

The economics mitigate against renewables. However some utility companies are producing clean energy, at great cost, and passing the 'savings' (rotflmao) on to their customers. My utility has been offering wind generated electricity for years now, at much increased cost. Soon we will have no choice. If you want to know the economic impact of 'clean' energy just go to your super market and check out the prices of 'organically grown' foods. Are you ready for $4 cucumbers?

 

[SnowyMacie]

The economics mitigate against renewables. However some utility companies are producing clean energy, at great cost, and passing the 'savings' (rotflmao) on to their customers. My utility has been offering wind generated electricity for years now, at much increased cost. Soon we will have no choice. If you want to know the economic impact of 'clean' energy just go to your super market and check out the prices of 'organically grown' foods. Are you ready for $4 cucumbers?

Personally, I'd pay more in a heartbeat if I knew that I was getting wind or solar electricity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Personally, I'd pay more in a heartbeat if I knew that I was getting wind or solar electricity.

The solar is fed into the grid with the fossil fuel produced electricity, so you are getting mixture of both.

 

[PapaZoom]

The economics mitigate against renewables. However some utility companies are producing clean energy, at great cost, and passing the 'savings' (rotflmao) on to their customers. My utility has been offering wind generated electricity for years now, at much increased cost. Soon we will have no choice. If you want to know the economic impact of 'clean' energy just go to your super market and check out the prices of 'organically grown' foods. Are you ready for $4 cucumbers?

for the poor the choice is to freeze to death this winter or die for lack of food. Such is the great utopia of renewable energy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

for the poor the choice is to freeze to death this winter or die for lack of food. Such is the great utopia of renewable energy.

Renewables have their place, but it takes oil to go to war.

 

[PapaZoom]

Renewables have their place, but it takes oil to go to war.

We had wars long before oil. I think renewable are good although I've heard that in some cases it's more polluting to recondition the recycled material. I don't know. I know that my car won't run on wind or solar. If it's going to double my cost to replace the fossil fuel I'm currently using, I'm against it. Poor people can't afford that sort of rate hike. And the good technology is years away.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We had wars long before oil.

I said "takes", not "took".

I think renewable are good although I've heard that in some cases it's more polluting to recondition the recycled material.

Well, raising cattle organically is more polluting than the conventional method, so maybe. I don't see how burning wood is any more polluting than burning oil.

And the good technology is years away.

"Good" technology will never appear. Only the expensive variety will. We have opted for efficiency over effectiveness. Big difference.