Here is a news item that I have been following lately, because it involves yet another doubt about the whole notion of "scientific consensus" as it relates to global warming/climate change. You can read the full letter here. I have written an article on Jurgen Moltmann that discusses his theology as it relates to his presumption of an ecological crisis, which you can here. I have some book recommendations at the close of this article.
Professor Harold Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society after 70 years of membership over the organization's participation in the "global warming scam" is just the most recent show of disgust by principled scientists about promotion of pseudo-climate science for personal gain, according to National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett.
"This is just one more brick crumbling in the edifice of catastrophic global warming," Dr. Burnett said. "Harold Lewis joins a growing cadre of principled scientists who refuse to continue the scientific charade of catastrophic global warming."
"It is...the global warming scam with the trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists... It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist," Lewis said in his resignation.
By resigning, Lewis joins other principled scientists such as Chris Landsea, Claude Allegre and others who have argued that the evidence for catastrophic climate change was weak and could not justify costly, precipitous action to avert global warming.
"Lewis's resignation is just one more alarm about the folly of the pseudo-science behind global warming and catastrophic climate change," Burnett continued, "and we need to answer responsibly by reexamining the data and applying sound science, as other honest researchers have. Too many questions remain."
Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition
The MSM will try to keep this quiet just like last week's global warming scandal.
ReplyDeleteIf you aren't familiar with the 10:10 dust up, see the videos below.
While watching the first one, ask yourself if it's sincere or if 10:10 is being pranked on by skeptics.
Keep watching until you're sure, and then watch more.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7C79DEF1EE25E880
Note: the resignations of Chris Landsea and Roger A Pielke SR. both hint at conspiracy.
Landsea resigned because of an unethical press conference that was likely used by Al Gore as a green light to build his movie around Hurricane Katrina.
Pielke resigned because while lead author for a major climate report, scientists worked behind his back to undermine him. These incidents are well known and not hard to research.
---------
Even if you are familiar with the 10:10 thing, there's a variety of over the top eco stuff in the playlist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the most obvious lesson from Mr. Lewis' resignation is that exceptions prove the rules (or the consensus). The APS released a statement re-iterating the science (http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm).
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Lewis (who is not a climate scientist) is so hard on the thousands of scientists around the world doing research who have come to the same conclusion that he in fact shared nearly 20 years ago, when the data was much less certain. I was surprised that, in his letter, so lamenting the states of science, he doesn't state actual scientific evidence that contradicts the consensus.
Lewis:
"Yet despite the complexity, the bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases... The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases in the atmosphere."
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/a-physicists-climate-complaints/
(link also provides some good Q&A between Lewis and NYT blogger Andy Revkin)
I would encourage readers to question whether they agree (or disagree) with Lewis because they think it coincides with their political philosophy, or if they are weighing the evidence fairly for a proposition that actually has nothing to do with political philosophy (gases in the atmosphere don't read polls or suggest policies).
Keep in mind that a college education actually solidifies perceptions about global warming among the conservative/liberal split (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/282/global-warming-a-divide-on-causes-and-solutions).