Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Worjackie]

Is Wildcat the only person left on this planet who still believes in man made global warming?

[convert]

Well it looks like 10:10 is losing more and more backers:-

 

Businesses have begun to distance themselves from the carbon-cutting campaign 10:10 over a promotional film the organisation premiered last week that depicts schoolchildren, office workers and celebrities being blown up for not taking action on climate change. Sony UK and Kyocera Mita, two corporate partners of the 10:10 campaign, both condemned the short film ‘No Pressure’, directed by Richard Curtis, today, for being “tasteless” and “shocking”. – GreenWise Business, 5 October 2010

 

If the goal [of the film] had been to convince people that environmental campaigners have lost their minds and to provide red meat (literally) to shock radio hosts and pundits fighting curbs on greenhouse gases, it worked like a charm. Of course the goal might have been buzz more than efficacy. Too often these days, that’s the online norm. They succeeded on that front. I, among many others, am forced to write about it. Congratulations. –Andrew C Revkin, The New York Times, 4 October 2010

 

As often as 10:10 tried to pull the film off YouTube, their critics re-posted it. This, at least, proves what a cataclysmic misjudgement Curtis had made. When you try to satirise the critics of your campaign, and it turns out that those very critics embrace your film as demonstrating exactly what they find unbearable about the climate-obsessed eco-lobby, then you know that you have kicked the ball into your own net. Unfortunately, just as a star footballer who scores a spectacular own goal must now endure his foolishness being viewed endlessly on the internet, so Richard Curtis will have this hanging round his neck, like a stinking fish, for as long as he is successful enough to be worth mocking. –Dominic Lawson, The Independent, 5 October 2010

 

People who believe that humanity is heading towards destruction as a consequence of its misdeeds often take quiet pleasure in imagining the bloodshed to come. That, at least, is my explanation for Richard Curtis’s decision to make a short film for the 10:10 pressure group of climate change fanatics in which he depicted – with huge relish – children being blown to pieces. It’s important to grasp the quasi-religious nature of the 10:10 pressure group. Irrespective of where you stand on AGW, it’s clear that its pernickety commandments, most of them involving energy-saving lightbulbs, won’t make any difference to the fate of the planet. But they do have a sacred significance, as do the deaths in the Curtis snuff movie. There’s nothing like the prospect of the ritual slaughter of children to excite prophecy believers, in my experience. –Damian Thompson, The Daily Telegraph, 4 October 2010

[convert]

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

 

 

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

[convert]

Warmist, William M Connolley (a contriubtor @ realclimate) has been banned from posting on climate related wiki's for 6 months...

 

William M. Connolley topic-banned (R3)

5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

 

Support:

1.To replace remedies 5.1 to 5.5 above. Roger Davies talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

2.Shell babelfish 08:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

3.It has become clear, during the case itself, that the topic area has become too personalized and polarized around a number of editors who are, frankly, incapable of working together. While I may not agree that all editors involved have the same severity of misbehavior, I can appreciate that a forcible fresh start is probably going to help — with gradual return on merit as the editors involve themselves in other areas of the project. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

4.Risker (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

5.Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

6.Aye. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

7.Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise. My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing while addressing the problems that exist with it. (This is an observation I've made about some of the other editors who are being topic-banned as well.) We have also acknowledged that some of the specific assertions made about him previously were inaccurate or taken out of context. However, the "enough is enough" consensus of the committee is clear, and given the entire record here I can hardly say that the overall structure and outcome of the final decision is an outlandish one. Given the result, I hope that William M. Connolley can refocus his dedication to the project in other ways, while addressing the concerns that have been expressed so that he can return to this topic area in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 

Source http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/14/going.html

 

It was a 7-0 vote in favour of banning him - now that's what I call a consensus

[Grandad.Malky]

Global warming is one of the big issues of the universe. Which has no solution till at that time and i can also not make sure it will be solved in coming years. Because it is incresing day by day.... . No one knows how to control over the situations like that.....

 

 

Has it got that big now, have they got a computer model to prove it’s a universal phenomenon?

[Wildcat]

 

Has it got that big now, have they got a computer model to prove it’s a universal phenomenon?

 

There are quite a few computer models that have shown predictive accuracy, the one thing they all have in common is they require the greenhouse effect and man made CO2 to work.

 

There is no other explanation that comes close to explaining recent warming.

[Wildcat]

In other words, absolute proof that it is not man-made O_o

 

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science, only in mathematics.

[retep]

An interesting piece on CO2,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909141521.htm

[JIbbo]

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science, only in mathematics.

 

[JIbbo]

There are quite a few computer models that have shown predictive accuracy, the one thing they all have in common is they require the greenhouse effect and man made CO2 to work.

 

There is no other explanation that comes close to explaining recent warming.

 

find me a model then ? as the IPCC report and models are based for predictions of climate upto 2100.