http://www.americanthinker....t_calls_out_the.html

Big money and big politics have corrupted Big Science, and global warming is the proof.

The American Physical Society is the pre-eminent academic organization of American physicists, and supportive of the global warming fraud, which has generated billions of dollars in research funding for Big Science. In an extraordinary act, a prominent scientist has resigned from the APS, in protest of its forsaking of genuine science. Generally, scientists do not voluntarily separate themselves from such honors as membership in the APS.

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, sent the following letter to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society, an act Anthony Watts likens to Martin Luther nailing his theses to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral. The letter speaks for itself, laying out the problem of corruption of big science:

[Letter]
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; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
[/Letter]

Wow.... Gutsy move, good for him.

If its not covered by mainstream media--- it never happened.
We'll see.

But Obama and Gore said the science is settled. They must know best, right?

Kudos to Prof. Lewis. I wish I was hopeful that his action would have any impact on the AGW machine, but there's too much money to be made.

Harold Lewis really is what the article says he is: http://www.physics.ucsb.edu...le/faculty/index.php

Can't find anything main stream. I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Found an article from a climate website here: http://climateprogress.org/...an-physical-society/

And he told CBS News: "Nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century." But he added, "If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels, you are on thin ice." last year. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301...-5933353-504383.html

Leaves little doubt.

[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 10-11-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Black Lotus: If its not covered by mainstream media--- it never happened. We'll see.

Maybe it won't be covered because it's one physicist out of 48,000 members with an opinion.

quote Topic: A respected Physicist calls out Global Warming

Blacktree likes this

quote Originally posted by newf: Maybe it won't be covered because it's one physicist out of 48,000 members with an opinion.

And how many of those 48,000 agree with him?

Clearly, an application of the Scientific method has exposed Anthropogenic Global Warming as a hoax. The problem you have when a theory is exposed to be inaccurate you invariably have entire communities of scientists whose lives have been dedicated to espousing the verso that are now in the awkward position of having to admit their error or stand their ground.

Black Holes? For decades most scientists said they could only exist in theory and not in the real universe. Several of those scientists still advocate that position amazingly enough.

Asteroid extinction event of 65 million years ago? There are STILL thousands of nut cases that argue that it only "contributed" to the extinction but wasn't the main cause.

The are dozens of other examples. "Scientists" who advocate AGP are screwed and they know it so they are soldiering on....at our expense.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And how many of those 48,000 agree with him? Clearly, an application of the Scientific method has exposed Anthropogenic Global Warming as a hoax. The problem you have when a theory is exposed to be inaccurate you invariably have entire communities of scientists whose lives have been dedicated to espousing the verso that are now in the awkward position of having to admit their error or stand their ground. Black Holes? For decades most scientists said they could only exist in theory and not in the real universe. Several of those scientists still advocate that position amazingly enough. Asteroid extinction event of 65 million years ago? There are STILL thousands of nut cases that argue that it only "contributed" to the extinction but wasn't the main cause. The are dozens of other examples. "Scientists" who advocate AGP are screwed and they know it so they are soldiering on....at our expense.

True there could be plenty more that agree with him but haven't spoken up.

However I don't see where the speeding up of Climate Change by mans actions has been exposed as inaccurate, sure there has been some who have made innaccurate claims but I think many scientists are still showing that the evidence of it is sound.

Your point about the Dinasaur extinction is a rather good one, the fact that it is a theory that they were affected and killed off by a large asteroid impact is a sound one but it hasn't been proven, so there will always be detractors to that theory. Much like the Climate Change Theory. I would even venture to say even if it were proven there would be some that wouldn't believe it. There are lots of people that don't believe the Moon landings! There is a flat earth society.

My thoughts on people that are suspicious of some that look only to gain from Global warming scare tactics are that we should all be suspicious, it's a good thing but I think we should acknowledge and be suspicious of the ones who would like to see us continue to use fossil fuels at the rates we do now just as well.

Dumping sewage into the ocean and rivers was common years ago and people never thought it could hurt the environment, as was dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere before filters and such were mandated. There are alos many examples of such incidents. Does that mean that every bit of Climate Change science is "settled"? I would hope no one ever considers science truly settled but will recognize the need to change when needed.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-11-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: However I don't see where the speeding up of Climate Change by mans actions has been exposed as inaccurate, sure there has been some who have made innaccurate claims but I think many scientists are still showing that the evidence of it is sound.

That's an interesting statement considering that the tenant of science is to offer a hypothesis and then offer evidence to support it.
While we have seen evidence of rising CO₂ levels and evidence of rising global temperatures, where's the evidence linking the two.
Correlation is not causation.

Using the same "scientific method" the global warming scientists use, I could also prove that global warming is caused by a decline in the number of pirates in the world.

You can clearly see how as the number of pirates declines, the global temperatures rise.

Of course that is an absurd example, but it's the exact same question. WHERE is the link showing one is causing the other?

There have been warming and cooling periods in the earth's past and it will continue as long as the earth exists. There have been ice ages and warm periods so extreme that they could very well wipe out the human race if they happen again. The mechanisms that caused those climate changes are still at work, and thinking we can change them is like trying to stop a hurricane by farting into the wind.

I will harp on this again. The world is warming up, it does this in a major way every 250000000 years, as if the sun were going through an inflow every orbit around the galaxy, as has been observed in other galaxies.

Uh, we were not here 250000000 years ago to cause this, not 500000000 years ago to cause that one, not 750000000 years ago for that one, nor are we on mars now heating it up.

Its the trillions of dollars involved in taxes and industry that cause this stupid "we caused it, we can stop it" mentality. Read the lips of those with no dog in the fight, the idea we did it is really really stupid.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's an interesting statement considering that the tenant of science is to offer a hypothesis and then offer evidence to support it. While we have seen evidence of rising CO2 levels and evidence of rising global temperatures, where's the evidence linking the two. Correlation is not causation. Using the same "scientific method" the global warming scientists use, I could also prove that global warming is caused by a decline in the number of pirates in the world. You can clearly see how as the number of pirates declines, the global temperatures rise. Of course that is an absurd example, but it's the exact same question. WHERE is the link showing one is causing the other? There have been warming and cooling periods in the earth's past and it will continue as long as the earth exists. There have been ice ages and warm periods so extreme that they could very well wipe out the human race if they happen again. The mechanisms that caused those climate changes are still at work, and thinking we can change them is like trying to stop a hurricane by farting into the wind.

Do you know the Climate Change theory? It takes into account that the earths climate changes for natural reasons as well.

According to the US National Research Council Report – Understanding and Responding to Climate Change - published in 2008, "[most] scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-11-2010).]

I am not a tree hugging hippie.

However, if you have major industry in 100 or so developed nations producing vast amounts of pollutants, and 6 billion people consuming those goods, and in the meantime are contributing to deforestation on an unprecedented scale, then the earth is going to be changed because of it.

Is it the only reason? That's the trillions of dollars question.

If you have industry(all) that pays for its inputs, and its marketing, and its labour and the land the factories sit on, and pensions and everything else, then I think its responsible to say that they should pay for the waste they expel. Up until now, its been free.

I don't need to be a scientist to come to those conclusions. They, to me, are common sense.

quote Originally posted by newf: The warming in this century is seen by scientists as unprecedented and not a normal cyclical change.

I see you still think the lie is actually the truth. The warming and cooling in this century are well within known norms dating back several hundred years. That is the whole point. There is no "unprecedented" global warming.

If you go through the postings of Fierobear and myself you will see the evidence and the threads linking you to the evidence sources that tells you that there is no such thing as 21st Century Global Warming. It has been cooling for the last 10 years.

Arn

Uh oh, no more "concensus"?

LOL

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I see you still think the lie is actually the truth. The warming and cooling in this century are well within known norms dating back several hundred years. That is the whole point. There is no "unprecedented" global warming. If you go through the postings of Fierobear and myself you will see the evidence and the threads linking you to the evidence sources that tells you that there is no such thing as 21st Century Global Warming. It has been cooling for the last 10 years. Arn

I know you probably disbelieve groups like NASA and the other major scientific bodies but it's worth noting that they don't agree with your statements.

"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/...ures/earth_temp.html

quote Originally posted by newf: I know you probably disbelieve groups like NASA and the other major scientific bodies but it's worth noting that they don't agree with your statements. "The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990." http://www.nasa.gov/topics/...ures/earth_temp.html

Right you are. NASA was using East Anglia's data to make that statement. Also, do you really trust the Obama administration to tell you the truth when they are so beholding to Al Gore?

Arn

Most scientists involved go with the flow. They dont want to argue against the false facts because they then lose their cushy incomes themselves. They have to support facts that are obviously wrong to keep getting their funding/ paychecks.

A 100-200 year cycle cant be a basis for man causing global warming. It takes hundreds of thousands of years to go thru the normal cycles. Theres no such thing as MANMADE global warming. Even the ones who started crying wolf have toned it down so they dont look like complete morons....Nothing more than plain old routine global climate change is going on. A single big volcano erupting causes far more atmosheric trouble than everything man has done for centuries.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Most scientists involved go with the flow. They dont want to argue against the false facts because they then lose their cushy incomes themselves. They have to support facts that are obviously wrong to keep getting their funding/ paychecks. A 100-200 year cycle cant be a basis for man causing global warming. It takes hundreds of thousands of years to go thru the normal cycles. Theres no such thing as MANMADE global warming. Even the ones who started crying wolf have toned it down so they dont look like complete morons....Nothing more than plain old routine global climate change is going on. A single big volcano erupting causes far more atmosheric trouble than everything man has done for centuries.

I believe they have Ice Core evidence to prove this is unprecedented.

Sorry to disappoint you but wrong again. The ice core information did not prove global warming in the 20th or 21st centuries. It did prove that global warming has occurred time and again over the millenia.

Arn

Like I said there are people that will never trust the science because it's doubtful to be 100% provable. Even if it were there will be plenty of people that would not agree. I like the comments by Gridlock, and I'm sure there are plenty of people on both sides that may be over or under stating things.
The notion that it's some kind of Governments of the world conspiracy is not one I buy into however. I think it's the Oil industry that has the power and does not want to lose any of it so they are trying to help cloud the issue as much as possible. Like I've said before look at the tobacco industry in the 70's and 80's.

quote Originally posted by newf: Like I said there are people that will never trust the science because it's doubtful to be 100% provable. Even if it were there will be plenty of people that would not agree. I like the comments by Gridlock, and I'm sure there are plenty of people on both sides that may be over or under stating things. The notion that it's some kind of Governments of the world conspiracy is not one I buy into however. I think it's the Oil industry that has the power and does not want to lose any of it so they are trying to help cloud the issue as much as possible. Like I've said before look at the tobacco industry in the 70's and 80's.

*sigh* Here we f***ing go again.

OK, so the 20-something pages of articles I've posted don't matter to you? I don't feel like repeating all the goddamn research here and now, but here are some basics:

1. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree on something. All it takes is ONE to disprove a theory. One. That's it. The number of scientists is MEANINGLESS.

Here is one. Dr. Richard Lindzen, using 20 years of ACTUAL DATA, shows that ALL the "computer models" used by the warmists were WRONG in their projections. 180 degrees wrong.

Link to paper (pdf file): http://www.drroyspencer.com...nd-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

Commentary and explaination of the paper
http://www.drroyspencer.com...2009-feedback-study/
http://www.examiner.com/civ...e-says-mit-scientist (link to his paper)

There are others, I'll get to them eventually.

2. Gridlock mentioned a "common sense assumption" or something like that. Science isn't common sense, it's about proof or lack of.

3. Even if what you say about the oil industry is true, we are NOT going to stop using oil any time in the near future, no matter what anyone says or what kind of laws they try to pass. Period. We have NO viable substitute for oil yet. This "oil company is fueling deniers" or whatever is nothing more than a red herring.

4. There are temperature proxies going back 100s of 1,000s of years showing much higher and lower temperatures than we have now with no chance of human influence. Also, the ice cores show that CO2 FOLLOWS warming, it does NOT precede it.

5. As for NASA, the temperature record is from their GISS center, with James Hansen as the guy who's "cooking the books". He keeps adjusting current temperatures upward, and historic temperatures downward. Why would you do that?

Good summary
http://www.appinsys.com/glo...ansen_GlobalTemp.htm

quote Originally posted by newf: You may want to look that word up

That word is what they used to describe what they had (or have), but it should not apply to anything scientific.
They just lost another one, was my point.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: *sigh* Here we f***ing go again. OK, so the 20-something pages of articles I've posted don't matter to you? I don't feel like repeating all the goddamn research here and now, but here are some basics: 1. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree on something. All it takes is ONE to disprove a theory. One. That's it. The number of scientists is MEANINGLESS. Here is one. Dr. Richard Lindzen, using 20 years of ACTUAL DATA, shows that ALL the "computer models" used by the warmists were WRONG in their projections. 180 degrees wrong. Link to paper (pdf file): http://www.drroyspencer.com...nd-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf Commentary and explaination of the paper http://www.drroyspencer.com...2009-feedback-study/ http://www.examiner.com/civ...e-says-mit-scientist (link to his paper) There are others, I'll get to them eventually. 2. Gridlock mentioned a "common sense assumption" or something like that. Science isn't common sense, it's about proof or lack of. 3. Even if what you say about the oil industry is true, we are NOT going to stop using oil any time in the near future, no matter what anyone says or what kind of laws they try to pass. Period. We have NO viable substitute for oil yet. This "oil company is fueling deniers" or whatever is nothing more than a red herring. 4. There are temperature proxies going back 100s of 1,000s of years showing much higher and lower temperatures than we have now with no chance of human influence. Also, the ice cores show that CO2 FOLLOWS warming, it does NOT precede it. 5. As for NASA, the temperature record is from their GISS center, with James Hansen as the guy who's "cooking the books". He keeps adjusting current temperatures upward, and historic temperatures downward. Why would you do that? Good summary http://www.appinsys.com/glo...ansen_GlobalTemp.htm

Don't bother, like I said before you can copy and paste all the data that supports your theory just as well as I can. The thing that bugs me is that some are so sure about the fact nothing is happening yet there is evidence that the Climate IS changing is everywhere.

If they concede that it is in fact changing then they are positive man has nothing to do with it. I don't know many scientists that would say they are sure about it either way 100% so I don't know why others claim to be.

Man is polluting the environment and atmosphere there is no doubt about it. To what degree it is affecting climate may be debatable but to think man can't have an adverse effect is being naive IMO. I'm sure some didn't believe man could decimate fishing grounds by overfishing or cause cities to have smog days or that there was acid rain or smoking caused cancer until it was theorized by scientists.

quote Originally posted by newf: The notion that it's some kind of Governments of the world conspiracy is not one I buy into however. I think it's the Oil industry that has the power and does not want to lose any of it so they are trying to help cloud the issue as much as possible. Like I've said before look at the tobacco industry in the 70's and 80's.

Many people see it as a croc who are not affiliated with oil. Probably all the people here for example.

quote Originally posted by newf: The notion that it's some kind of Governments of the world conspiracy is not one I buy into however. I think it's the Oil industry that has the power and does not want to lose any of it so they are trying to help cloud the issue as much as possible. Like I've said before look at the tobacco industry in the 70's and 80's.

No government conspiracy=NO
Oil company conspiracy=YES
Funny stuff!
Did you follow closely what was said by everyone at the Copenhagen meeting?

quote Originally posted by newf: Don't bother, like I said before you can copy and paste all the data that supports your theory just as well as I can. The thing that bugs me is that some are so sure about the fact nothing is happening yet there is evidence that the Climate IS changing is everywhere.

"Imagine this, these same scientists believe in an ice age that happened without peoples interference. "

quote Originally posted by 2.5: That word is what they used to describe what they had (or have), but it should not apply to anything scientific. They just lost another one, was my point.

Got ya. I don't think it's a bad thing for people to question and present opposing opinions, in fact people that blindly follow and don't question are scary. I like to try and get informatiopn from reputable sources and trust (for the most part) that they are not corrupt.

quote Originally posted by newf: Of course they do, that's taken into account in their studies. They have shown the levels of C02 are at an extreme high compared to the last 500 000 years or more and that they have risen faster and higher within the last 30-50 years.

Yet before the ice age, they believe it was warm.
See where I am going?

quote Originally posted by newf: Don't bother, like I said before you can copy and paste all the data that supports your theory just as well as I can.

It's not "data that supports my theory". It's a paper from a climate scientist from MIT who disproved the pro-warming computer models. That IS science, not MY theory.

quote The thing that bugs me is that some are so sure about the fact nothing is happening yet there is evidence that the Climate IS changing is everywhere.

This is bordering on a red herring. Yes, climate changes. Noone is saying that it doesn't or isn't. The warmists simply haven't proven that WE are causing it.

quote If they concede that it is in fact changing then they are positive man has nothing to do with it. I don't know many scientists that would say they are sure about it either way 100% so I don't know why others claim to be.

No, there are scientists and others saying bullshit like "the debate is over" and "the science is settled." Science is NEVER settled. You seem to agree with that, but the warmists are saying the opposite of what you just said above.

quote Man is polluting the environment and atmosphere there is no doubt about it. To what degree it is affecting climate may be debatable but to think man can't have an adverse effect is being naive IMO. I'm sure some didn't believe man could decimate fishing grounds by overfishing or cause cities to have smog days or that there was acid rain or smoking caused cancer until it was theorized by scientists.

More red herrings, none of which have anything to do with climate and climate science. Throwing out other examples does not prove your point. It's either about climate and man or it's not. You're just obfuscating the issue.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Yet before the ice age, they believe it was warm. See where I am going?

I do. Around in circles. just kidding. Listen, I know neither of us here is going to convince one or another what we believe but as new data and credible science comes up please feel free to post it and we'll discuss.

quote Originally posted by newf: True, most Governments are highly infueluenced by Oil companies. How big is the Oil Lobby in Washington I wonder? Why is it every President since Nixon has mentioned getting off foriegn oil and never done a thing about it? Who has the power? What would people in power do so that they don't lose it?

Let me see if I get this.
Our government is in the pockets of big oil, but they are pushing global warming, which goes against the pockets that they are in.
Did you miss the question I asked?

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 10-12-2010).]

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Let me see if I get this. Our government is in the pockets of big oil, but they are pushing global warming, which goes against the pockets that they are in.

Pushing? I don't think so. Dragging their heels more like it. What has been done so far?

quote Originally posted by newf: I do. Around in circles. just kidding. Listen, I know neither of us here is going to convince one or another what we believe but as new data and credible science comes up please feel free to post it and we'll discuss.

Well, gee, I just did and you dismissed it as "my theory". What will it take for you to consider an alternative conclusion?

quote Originally posted by newf: Don't bother, like I said before you can copy and paste all the data that supports your theory just as well as I can. The thing that bugs me is that some are so sure about the fact nothing is happening yet there is evidence that the Climate IS changing is everywhere.

It bugs you that people are so sure it's not happening, yet you're so sure it is. So how is that any different, when as you say, both sides can copy and paste data?
So why is it you're so unwilling to listen to an opposing view, while expecting the opposing view to listen to yours?

Can you prove to me the number of pirates isn't responsible for global warming?
Can you prove there is no connection between them?

I know man affects the environment and we should do what we can for cleaner and renewable energy. That's not my concern. My concern is the hype and hysteria driving radical changes that can not only bankrupt entire nations but transfer enormous wealth and power to governments to deal with this "crisis."

For example, we can scientifically prove that if you add liquid to a body of liquid, the level of that liquid will rise in the container. Do you agree?
That's empirically and repeatably provable.
Given that since we know one of the concerns of global warming is rising sea levels, why haven't we made any effort to outlaw peeing in the ocean?
The science is irrefutable - if you pee in the ocean, the sea level will rise. Couple that with the billions of people in the world and clearly this is a grave threat to the earth.

Or is it?
It's a matter of scale.

Even if we accept everything about anthropogenic global warming, there's still the matter of scale.
What is the scale of man's impact on global temperatures? How much of rising CO₂ is from natural cycles and how much is manmade?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-12-2010).]