Tag Archives: hoax

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

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

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.

Anthony Watts describes it thus:

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).

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.

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)

INCALZIREA GLOBALA – o teorie ce ramane fara sustinatori?

Via blog Zona de criza am gasit o postare „Joaca de-a Terra”  despre ultima aberatie SUA in materie de isterie legata de incalzirea globala 

Preşedintele Barack Obama consideră un plan radical pentru combaterea încălzirii globale prin poluarea atmosferei cu o serie de substanţe care ar reflecta o parte din căldura soarelui.

Controvesatul experiment a fost prezentat ca ultima soluţie pentru controlul temperaturii globale de către noul consultant pe ştiinţă al preşedintelui Barack Obama, John Holden.

„Trebuie să verificăm şi această posibilitate. Nu ne permitem luxul de a trece cu vederea vreo metodă”, a declarat Holden. Acesta a subliniat idea că împrăştierea de particule de dioxid de sulf, dioxid de aluminiu sau aerosoli, în stratosferă, ar putea răci planeta prin reflectarea radiaţilor solare, înainte să fie absorbite de suprafaţa Pământului. 

Tunurile navale, rachetele, avioanele de mare altitudine şi chiar baloanele cu aer sunt metodele de răspândire a diverşilor agenţi, propuşi de John Holden. 

INCALZIREA GLOBALA – o teorie ce ramane fara sustinatori?

Daca teoria cu „incalzirea globala” este un hoax atunci ce efect ar avea „solutia” propusa de Holden si ai sai sustinatori ? 

Intr-o postare mai veche ( aici ) despre ce pregateste „Mama” UE in materie de familie, mentionam despre oamenii de stiinta care sustin ca toata povestea cu incalzirea globala nu este reala. Hai sa reluam:

Pe site-ul Comisiei pentru Mediu a senatului SUA  exista multe articole si rapoarte interesante despre oamenii de stiinta care se distanteaza de teoria „incalzirii globale cauzate de om” precum si de „efectele prognozate” care … nu prea se confirma.

Articol: Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 

Fostul Vice-Presedinte Al Gore a venit la  Washington in data de 17 July, 2008, pentru a livra un alt discurs de avertisment legat de „criza climatica”.

“Experti de seama estimeaza ca avem mai putin de 10 ani pentru a face schimbari dramatice in poluarea ce genereaza incalzirea globala inainte de a pierde sansa de a ne reveni din aceasta criza ecologica” a declarat Gore.

DAR fostul vice-presedinte, care de cativa ani buni ne tot avertizeaza legat de acest termen de „10 ani” , pare sa nu fi luat la cunostinta ca Natiunile Unite au inceput deja numaratoarea inversa a celor 10 ani in ….. 1989!! […] 

In timp ce Gore repeta discursul sau standard ce promoveaza ingrijorarile legate de influenta umana asupra climei, cea mai mare parte a comunitatii stiintifice internationale se distanteaza deschis de teoria ce sustine ca incalzirea globala este cauzata de om.

Mai jos sunt DOAR CATEVA exemple din evolutiile ce nu convin lui Gore, ONU si mass mediei mainstream.  Studii peer-reviewed, analize,  si oameni de stiinta ce continua sa declare deschis respingerea teoriei climatice. Majoritatea datelor prezentate mai jos nu sunt mai vechi de 1 luna sau 2. 

[nota din articol: de vazut si articolul de aici care arata disproportia usiasa intre finantarea de care se bucura sustinatorii „consensului” de „incalzire globala” versus finantarile de care au beneficiat oamenii de stiinta dizidenti ]  

Cam ce se spune in articolele si link-urile mentionate:

– nu exista nici un consens real legat de „incalzirea globala”. In 2007 erau 400 de oameni de stiinta care se distantau de aceasta teorie, in martie 2009 sunt peste 700. 

– mass media mainstream prezinta finantarea de 19 milioane de dolari a studiilor facute de sceptici dar uita cu desavarsire de cele peste 50 de miliarde puse la dispozitia celor care sustin consensul celor 52 de oameni de stiinta de la ONU. Oare unde se duc banii?

[Note: The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California „proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming,” according to the Sacramento Bee. (LINK) Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.(LINK) ] Update: Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)

–  in 2007  James Hansen si grupul sau au fost nevoiti sa „repare” un bug Y2K descoperit de un statistician canadian in procesarea datelor de la termometre. Rezultatul ? 1998 nu mai este statistic cel mai fierbinte an .. ci 1934. Dar nimeni nu s-a grabit sa repare public „greseala” ce a plantat in capetele oamenilor „1989” si corul plangerilor despre incalzirea globala.

As a result, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the United States – 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have seared „1998!” into our brains as the rallying cry for the fight against global warming.

– in august 2007 apare o analiza a studiilor stiintifice publicate intre 2004 si 2007 si …. doar 7% dintre studii sprijineau in mod explicit „consensul” incalzirii globale.  Daca le adaugam si pe cele ce ce sugerau consensul dar nu explicit, ajungem la 47%. In timp ce 6% dintre studii rejectau existenta „consensului”, cea mai mare categorie de studii (48%) erau neutre, refuzand sa accepte sau sa nege ipoteza. 

„Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no ‘consensus,'” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no „consensus” on global warming.

– sunt foarte multi bani la mijloc pentru cei ce sustin teoria incalzirii globale:

„Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) „Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,” Spann added.

– raportul „U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009″ contine chestii interesante:

Bryan Leyland, head of the International Climate Science Coalition and an engineer, disputed man-made global warming fears in 2007. „Let us start with a simple question: ‘Is the world warming?’ The surface temperature records used by the IPCC show that it has warmed by 0.7 deg C since 1900. The world has not warmed since 1998 and temperatures have been steady since 2002. So the only answer can be: ‘It warmed between 1900 and 1998. Nobody knows if the current slight cooling trend will soon end or continue,'” Leyland wrote in a November 2007 commentary. Leyland also disputed any link between man-made CO2 and temperature. „Computer models of the climate show that if it did, the largest increase in temperature would be 10 km above the tropics. Radiosonde observations published in 2006 show NO sign of faster warming. Therefore, we can be sure that man-made carbon dioxide is not causing global warming,” Leyland wrote.

– la pagin 230 din raport, exista o sectiune interesanta, despre ceea ce spun oamenii de stiinta inca necontorizati ca sceptici: evidentele geologice arata ca in urma cu milioane de ani nivelul de CO2 era mai mare – in unele cazuri de cateva ori mai mare – decat acum; modelele matematice folosite sunt „ajustate” ca sa dea rezultatele dorite, :

The following scientists may not be referred to as „skeptical” but they make very important and noteworthy points: (Note: The below scientists are not included in total tally of skeptical scientists)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier labeled climate fears oversimplified. Boston College’s professor of Geology and Geophysics Frappier explained in a February 1, 2007 article in Boston College’s newspaper The Heights,

„The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher – in some cases many times higher – than today.” Frappier noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. „At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated,” said Frappier, „and you don’t have increased heating.”

According to the article, Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the climate, criticized Gore because „his movie fails to mention any ancient incongruity between carbon dioxide and temperature.”

Scientists Claim Computer Model Predictions are ‘Useless Arithmetic’ – Orrin H. Pilkey, a coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke and his daughter Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, wrote a book in 2007 entitled Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future. Thought the authors stress their book does not specifically address man-made global warming fears, it does present „an overall attack on the use of computer programs to model nature,” according to a February 20, 2007 New York Times book review. The Times book review explained how these models „may include coefficients (the authors call them ‘fudge factors’) to ensure that they come out right. And the modelers may not check to see whether projects performed as predicted.” „Nature is too complex, they (the authors) say, and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored – whether the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of grains of sand on a beach,” the Times article explained. „And instead of demanding to know exactly how high seas will rise or how many fish will be left in them or what the average global temperature will be in 20 years, they argue, we should seek to discern simply whether seas are rising, fish stocks are falling and average temperatures are increasing. And we should couple these models with observations from the field. Models should be regarded as producing ‘ballpark figures,’ they write, not accurate impact forecasts,” the Times article continued. The coastal models are so flawed that Pilkey recommends dredging up a lot of sand and dumping it on the beach „willy-nilly” and he predicts you would end up with the same result, minus the „false mathematical certitude.” (LINK)


Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate changefor none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is „settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

Intregul raport este extrem de interesant. Dupa ce citesti parerile si studiile, parca apare un gust amar; campaniile care canta sus si tare „incalzirea globala” si „excesul alarmant de CO2” incep sa sune precum strigaturile din categoria „hotii striga hotii”. „Ei” detin tehnologia bazata pe combustibili fosili si tot „ei” pun frana oricarei tehnologii alternative .. dar „ei” striga la noi … ca noi suntem de vina ca mergem cu masinile, ca tehnologiile neconventionale au ramas neconventionale in ultimii 30 de ani. Ei tin fraiele .. si noi suntem de vina! „Ei” si ai lor taie padurile si restul omenirii este de vina ca sunt „ecologici nesimtiti”. Mda .. probabil ca „noi” suntem de vina, totusi. Inca nu am auzit de vreun popor care sa ceara prin referendum unui stat sa listeze ( nu sa divulge tehnologiile)  toate patentele legate de energii neconventionale si aplicatiile lor + sa aloce buget de stat pentru punerea in practica in cel mai scurt timp al acestor . Mai ca imi vine sa pun pariu ca initiatorii unui astfel de referendum si legi ar muri de pneumonie … ca era glontu’ rece.

Ahaaa .. apropos de paduri si de influenta lor vanturilor, iata ceva interesant. Descoperirea paleooceanografului elvetian Gerald Haug ( de la Institutul Geologic din Zürich ) si a colegilor sai te cam pune pe ganduri. 

It sounds like the stuff of science fiction, but nearly 13 millennia ago Europe was plunged suddenly into a deep freeze that lasted 1300 years–and the change happened in little more than a year, according to new data. The evidence also suggests that strong winds, not ocean currents, drove the rapid climate change.

Soon after the end of the last ice age, some 12,700 years ago, Europe suddenly fell into another perpetual winter. Average temperatures on the continent plunged as much as 5°C, and global temperatures overall dropped about 3°C. This extended cold period is known as the Younger Dryas, and paleoclimatologists studying Greenland ice cores and other evidence have known for some time that it began quickly, perhaps within just decades. But until now no one was sure exactly how rapidly the climate had changed or why. One hypothesis was a sudden shift in–or even a shutoff of–the Atlantic Ocean current that brings warm water from the tropics to Western Europe and helps the present-day continent maintain its relatively moderate temperatures. 

Paleoceanographer Gerald Haug of the Geological Institute in Zürich, Switzerland, and colleagues hunted for clues in sediments from Lake Meerfelder Maar in western Germany. Nestled inside an ancient volcanic crater, the lake is the only place known to hold well-preserved sediments that span the Younger Dryas. The fine-grained layers even reveal seasonal changes. 

In particular, the team studied deposits of siderite, a mineral formed by microscopic lake plankton during relatively warm months. Using x-ray scanning techniques to examine the deposits, the researchers found that, after several hundred years of seasonal changes, the siderite production stopped abruptly. „It gave us quite a surprise,” Haug says. That suggests that the Younger Dryas began within a single year, the researchers report in the August issue of Nature Geoscience. 

Moreover, the cessation of siderite formation in the lake was caused by a significant strengthening of the North American westerly winds, the researchers argue. Siderite forms at the lake bottom when the surface is calm and relatively warm and the water lacks oxygen. But strong, cold winds churn up and chill the surface and slightly oxygenate the water. The sedimentary record shows that the churning–and hence the cooling–must have lasted at Lake Meerfelder Maar for a long time. „It’s a strong example of how dynamic the [planet’s] climate system can be,” he says, referring to the speed and duration of the change. 

The findings will require the climate community „to question their dogma” that changes in ocean circulation caused the Younger Dryas, says oceanographer Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who has been a skeptic of ocean-driven climate change. This research suggests instead that the advent of strong winds may have shifted ocean circulation.