Don’t Be a Denier, The Science is In!

This is a letter of resignation to the President of the American Physical Society, Curtis G. Callan Jr, from Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It should have been printed on the front page of every newspaper in the country. If you have a blog, please copy it and post it on your blog. It might be one of the greatest thing I’ve ever read.

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

No further comment from me is necessary.

Global Warming and Global Cooling at the Same Time?

The ecoEnquirer has a new piece about the “seemingly contradictory research” showing that Antarctic ice is increasing and decreasing. While this may seem strange, paraphysicist (don’t ask me what that is) Dr. Elizabeth Frost has an answer: both conclusions are true.

“What we believe,” Dr. Frost told ecoEnquirer, “is that a new paradigm is needed in scientific thought. Since mutually exclusive sets of scientific results usually are published in respected scientific publications, we suggest that they are both true. There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated.”

When asked about whether or not sea levels would rise or fall Dr. Frost said:

“That is quite simple. The predicted result is that sea levels will both rise and fall, depending, of course, upon the perspective of the observer.”

While this explanation might seem absurd I think it makes total sense. Today it seems that scientist in general are less interested in finding “scientific truth,” and more interested in keeping their grant money flowing. Therefore, a scientist is more likely to come up with a conclusion that is in line with the agenda of the person or organization(s) funding their research. Ask yourself this, if you were a climatologist, and Al Gore was funding your research, what conclusion would you be more likely to come up with: one that contradicts Mr. Gore or one that validates his cataclysmic claims? 

Just something to think about.

 

Even Democrats Think EPA Carbon Emission Regulation Goals Are Bat-Poop Crazy

Well, at least one Democrat thinks so. Senator John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia will introduce a bill today that effectively stops the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide for at least two years.

For those of you who aren’t aware, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the stuff we humans, and most other mammals exhale. CO2 is also a by-product of burning fossil fuels. 

Republicans like Lisa Murkowski have already introduced legislation to reign in the power of the EPA, but Rockefeller’s bill is significant because it shows that even Democrats know that regulating a trace gas that is essential to life on our planet is bat-poop crazy.

Environmentalist are not happy, however, and are urging President Obama to veto the Rockefeller bill if it ever gets to his desk. They see the bill as “a dangerous precedent and a serious blow to the administration’s ability to cope with climate change if Congress fails to pass a bill.”

Can someone tell me how regulating carbon dioxide will help us cope with climate change? Do you really think that if we lower the amount of carbon dioxide we produce that it will have a significant impact on anything? Also, does anyone else think it is dangerous that the President can use an un-elected regulatory body to do his bidding if Congress doesn’t pass the bill he wants? Why even have a Congress?

Hopefully more Democrats will see the light and fight against this inappropriate use of the EPA. It may be too little too late though, especially if the EPA decides that it is going to do what ever it wants to do, Congress be damned.

For more information about Rockefeller’s bill, see this article from The Washington Post

Reaching Arbitrary Targets for Greenhouse Gas Levels Will Cripple Our Economy

Remember when gasoline was $4-$5 dollars a gallon? Remember how that impacted your family budget? High gas prices have negative budget effects for everyone who isn’t a multimillionaire. Luckily, gas prices are a product of supply and demand. Gasoline suppliers were willing to supply more gas at the higher price which in turn drove the price down to the market equilibrium. Granted, it was bad for a while when prices were high, but that was only temporary.

Now imagine what it would be like if gasoline was $7 a gallon. How would that affect your family’s budget? What would you have to give up just to get around in your vehicle? A vacation? Cable TV? The Internet? Food? I think we can all agree it would be bad. If market forces drove gas prices to $7 a gallon we would all suffer, but our suffering would be temporary. Gas suppliers would start to supply more gas it would drive prices back down to an equilibrium.

However, if government forces gas prices up to $7 a gallon through taxation we would not have the luxury of market forces to drive the price back down. But the government would never do that, right? I wouldn’t be so sure.

President Obama’s EPA want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. The transportation sector consumes 70% of the nation’s oil supply. This target was set in the EPA’s budget for fiscal 2010. According to Harvard researchers, the only way to reach that goal is to make driving more expensive through higher gas taxes.

Even if you drive a fuel efficient vehicle $7 gas would have an extremely negative effect on your budget. Not only would gasoline cost more, but every product that is shipped via truck would see an increase in prices. This would cripple our economy.

Even if you believe in made climate change, are you willing to cripple our economy to reduce greenhouse emissions? I certainly hope not. A gas tax increase of this magnitude would be economically irrational and should be avoided at all cost. We have already lived through $4-$5 a gallon gasoline and that was bad enough, we shouldn’t let the government force us to experience $7 a gallon.

I hope the politicians aren’t stupid enough to do this, because if you thought the protest against health care and the Tea Parties were rowdy, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Say Good-Bye to Cap-and-Trade and Hello to Cap-and-Dividend

President Obama said in January 2008 that his cap-and-trade plan would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket” since industries will be “forced” to retrofit their operations to fall under the strict new carbon emission standards. The cost of this retrofitting, like all business costs, is passed on to the consumer. These days, however, cap-and-trade has become increasingly unpopular among voters, especially during these tough economic times. Most people understand that it takes energy to produce things and you have to produce things to make the economy grow. The cap-and-trade bill would increase the cost of energy, which in turn would increase the price of production which means there would be less production and slower economic growth.

Last Wednesday, according to The Washington Post, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared that cap-and-trade was “dead.” While this is somewhat encouraging, I take the senator’s words with a grain of salt. Lately in Washington people have had a tendency to prematurely announce the death of bills. The health care bill was declared dead after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race, but still might get rammed through Congress this week. If Obama is going to appoint anymore Czars I think there should be a “Legislation Death Czar” to determine once and for all when a bill actually dies so we can stop talking about it. It’s also hard for me to believe that cap-and-trade is dead because Senator Graham, Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and Senator Joe Lieberman have been working on a bi-partisan Senate alternative to cap-and-trade that aims to set carbon caps on specific industries instead of creating a national target. This new bill won’t be called cap-and-trade but will still have the same effect on the specific sectors it targets, those sectors being: electric utilities, transportation, and industry.

While the new bi-partisan cap-and-trade alternative won’t put limits on the entire economy they will put limits on arguably three of the most important parts of the economy. Every individual and business uses electricity, transportation, and industry to some extent and the prices in these sectors will “necessarily skyrocket.” To solve this problem the politicians are considering giving pollution allowances directly back to consumers. They are calling this new plan cap-and-dividend, but make no mistake, this is just a wealth redistribution scheme. 

Fortunately, even this new cap-and-dividend plan will have a tough time making it through the Senate. Unfortunately, the Obama administration plans on using the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions which would have similar effects as a cap-and-trade bill except it will have been enacted by executive order rather than the legislation process.  

Why are any of these bills or executive orders even being considered when it is well-known that they will be harmful to the economy? Well, President Obama promised the world community back in December to cut U.S. carbon emissions 17% by 2020. Why 17%? Why 2020? You’re guess is as good as mine, but God forbid we break a promise to the world community.

All this nonsense is to be done in the name of slowing climate change. Nevermind that the IPCC has come under intense scrutiny lately for oversimplifying climate change information, or that the Climategate scandal has pretty much proven what many skeptics have thought all along, namely that the climate change “crisis” was all a fraud. Nope, new information or doubts about the scientific consensus don’t matter to Obama’s EPA or Democratic majorities. Perhaps these bill aren’t really about climate change?   

Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, said this about the senate bill: “What people need to understand about this bill is this really is a jobs bill, an economic transformation for America, an energy independence bill and a health/pollution-reduction bill that has enormous benefits for the country…”

If you buy that, I got some ocean front property in Arizona I’d like to sell you.

No Consensus?

In an interview this past weekend with the BBC, Professor Phil Jones, one of the professors in the middle of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. Here is the question asked with his answer word for word:

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Fair enough. The period from 1995-2010 isn’t long enough to achieve statistical significance, I’ll buy that. However, I thought the most revealing part of the interview was this exchange:

When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Is Professor Jones saying that the debate isn’t over and there is no scientific consensus? I thought the “warming of the climate was unequivocal.” That’s what the 2007 Nobel Prize winning IPCC report claimed. It appears no one actually bothered to even read the IPCC until now because it seems like every day a new error or flaw in the report is discovered. Errors like serious typos leading people to believe that the Himalayan glacier would be completely gone by 2035 instead of 2350. I’d say that’s a pretty serious typo. This isn’t the only mistake that’s been found either. London’s Sunday Times has a nice article summing up some other problems with the report.

The Washington Post also reports on some of the errors in the IPCC report but claims that, “climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel’s central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it.” Apparently there is an “industry of climate-change denialists” trying to destroy the credibility of the IPCC. At least that’s what Jeffrey Kargel, a professor who studies glaciers quoted in the Post article thinks. I wonder if this industry of climate-change denialists is a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy Hillary Clinton tried to warn us about.

I’ve been a skeptic for a long time and these recent revelations and events have provided some vindication for what I’ve felt about global warming. The ‘Climategate’ scandal, the holes in the IPCC report, cap-and-trade gathering dust in the Senate, and the Big Firms that have dropped their support for President Obama’s green agenda are most definitely statistically significant events. I wouldn’t dare claim that the debate is over, on the contrary, it has only just begun.

Politics and Global Warming

I just downloaded the Skeptical Science app for my iPod. This is an app for global warming believers to use to shoot down the most common arguments made by global warming skeptics. I haven’t had time to look at it thoroughly, but after a quick browse it looks like it has a lot of useful information no matter what side of the debate you fall on. I consider myself a skeptic but I have an open mind and I take into account arguments on both sides.

The problem with most people who believe 100% in man-made global warming is that they leave no room open for debate. They say that the science is settled and the debate is over. They say that there is a consensus of scientist who believe global warming is a real threat. This, however, is not how science is supposed to work. Since when was science decided by consensus? Only political decisions are decided by consensus.

The Global Warming debate has moved outside the realm of science and into the realm of politics. Politicians don’t care about making sure the science they base their policy decisions on is correct, they care about taking positions that will get them elected or re-elected. If a politician thinks that he can get more votes or higher approval ratings by promoting green jobs or green industry, regardless of the science it’s based on, he will do it.

This winter there have been massive snow storms all over the United States. Many skeptics have argued that these massive snow storms are evidence that global warming doesn’t exist, or is greatly exaggerated. The warmist are quick to point out that weather and climate are different and you have to look at long-term climate trends instead of short-term weather events. I would consider this argument valid except that warmist politicians have also used short-term weather events as evidence of the need to take immediate action on combating global warming. Here is a video compilation of some Senators talking about the lack of snow in Washington DC and elsewhere as evidence for global warming:

See what happens when politicians get involved in scientific debates? It gets all mucked up. This is why the ‘consensus’ on global warming is starting to collapse. 

We need to move the global warming debate back into the realm of science, although I fear it might be too late for that. When people like Al Gore have millions of dollars invested in making sure people believe in global warming it will be difficult to distinguish actual scientific fact from scientific alarmism.

Ensler’s Vagina Should Stick to Monologues

Eve Ensler, the writer of the “Vagina Monologues”, was on the The Joy Behar Show February 8th. That’s correct, Joy Behar has a show. It’s on Headline News. You missed it too? Thankfully the team at Newsbusters.org watches the show so I don’t have to. Sarah Palin came up in their conversation.  Apparently Ms. Ensler mentioned Gov. Palin in her new book, criticizing her for believing in Creationism but not believing in global warming. Their exchange follows (emphasis Newsbusters):

ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn’t believe in global warming is bizarre.
BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in it.
ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.
BEHAR: Right.
ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it. But I think that idea that she doesn’t believe in global warming and she could actually run for vice president, and we have a country where that is possible, it seems insane.
BEHAR: It’s unbelievable. It does seem insane and the fact that she has not negated the possibility of running in 2012.
ENSLER: But we have. We have negated the possibility of her winning.

I’m not surprised that Ms. Ensler finds it bizarre that Mrs. Palin doesn’t share her views on global warming. This is typical of the global warming crowd. If you don’t agree with them 100% you’re a denier or someone who doesn’t believe in the link between smoking and cancer or someone who thinks asbestos is as good as talcum power. Ms. Behar then mentions “scientist at every note” believes in global warming. I have no idea what that means. Maybe she meant to say that “every scientist of note” believes in global warming, but I don’t want to put words in her mouth.

Ms. Ensler then implied that recent earthquakes and tsunamis were caused by global warming. For those of you who didn’t study science in 4th grade, tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics. Earthquakes have nothing to do with anything related to global warming. Ms. Ensler, by trying to appear smarter than Sarah Palin you have made yourself look like a complete fool. I’m not surprised that Ms. Behar didn’t correct you.

Ms. Ensler then bemoans the fact that we live in a country where it is possible for someone who doesn’t believe in global warming to become Vice President. She goes so far as to say it’s insane.

Ms. Ensler,  we live free country where people are allowed to have different ideas and different points of view. You may think that’s “insane” but I think that’s great because most people don’t think like you. Perhaps your vagina should stick with the monologues and leave science to people who know what they’re talking about.

For more of the conversation between these two ladies check out the rest of the Newsbusters post.