dennislmay

APS and the Global Warming Scam

819 posts in this topic

I know this is old news but it is circulating again on Facebook.

Ellen Stuttle discussed before how a handful of people drafted

the APS position - without input from members - by a few people over lunch.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

I didn't like the APS before they became a purely political rubber stamping organization,

now they are less than useless.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article you link to, Dennis, by James Delingpole, was posted October 9, 2010.

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

Delingpole says:

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.

[....]

It's so utterly damning that I'm going to run it in full without further comment.

Hal Lewis, I'm very sorry to say, died of cancer a couple years ago.

Among the items he lists in the progression with the APS up until the time he resigned is this:

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 mindsimply to bring the subject into the open.<

The "few of us" to whom Hal referred were six persons, including Hal and Larry and the dissenting member from that lunch meeting where the position statement was drafted (you might recall I mentioned that one of those present dissented).

After a sequence of more hassles and battles the Topical Committee is now set to announce the new position statement. "Informed observers" predict that the new statement will basically say the same as the old one, without "incontrovertible" but with the same meaning.

The most recent APS bulletin announces on the front page that the committee's results will soon be forthcoming. Another article on the front page announces that funding for physics has been increased in some areas.

The heading of the funding article should be, "The Physics Community Is Being Provided with More Incentive to Cheat."

The simultaneous running of the two announcements carries a message: If you want some of the funds, careful what you say about climate issues.

Larry has the bulletin in his knapsack or someplace at the moment. I don't see it anyplace visible. I'll quote the exact headings later. (Edit: See post next below.)

Ellen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here are the headings from the APS News, March 2014 - Vol. 23, No. 3 (see post above).

APS to Review Statement on Climate Change

Funding for Physicsl Sciences Shows Some Gains

From the first article:

Preparations are underway by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) to review and possibly update the Society's statement on climate change. In the coming months, the APS membership will have a chance to weigh in on any proposed revisions before the Society adopts a final draft.

"We intend to keep the membership informed at every stage in this process," said Robert Jaffe, a physicist at MIT and Chair of POPA. "We're quite eager to make sure that the revision of the climate change statement is done in the most open and orderly way."

Yeah. Sure.

From the second article:

Physical science research funding fared relatively well in the recently passed 2014 federal spending bill. Several science projects that had been facing cancelation or construction delays will be able to continue. However, the modest spending increases are uneven and future budgets may not continue the trend.

[....]

The increases are not spread evenly across all agencies, however. Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) got a 20.4% bump in nominal dollars over 2013, meaning a 9.3% increase over 2012 or a 5.3% increase in inflation-adjusted dollars Research budgets at NASA did similarly well, increasing by 10.8% over 2013, and 3.5% over 2012.

[NSF, however, didn't do as well and might have to squeeze with construction for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST).)]

Ellen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it strange how the old-timers can clearly see the corruption that has been wrought upon "organized and institutional science" I am fairly certain that Freeman Dyson, a physicist who was at the same level of ability as Richard Feynman would concur with Lewis' disgust.

The "organized and institutional" branch of physics research has been co-opted, bribed and bought. This is not only sad news (I expected much better from physicists) but sad news since it indicates a decline in integrity which is an absolutely necessary ingredient to major advances in the physical sciences.

Bribe Money corrupts, Lots of Bribe Money corrupts absolutely.

One of the things my birth religion Judaism has taught me is the commandment: Do not take a bribe for bribes blind the eyes of the wise and twists the ways of the just. Ex: 23:8

these guys have been bought. Shame, shame, shame, shame!!!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it strange how the old-timers can clearly see the corruption that has been wrought upon "organized and institutional science" I am fairly certain that Freeman Dyson, a physicist who was at the same level of ability as Richard Feynman would concur with Lewis' disgust.

I'm more than "fairly certain." The group of six persons I mentioned in post #2 had some interchange with Dyson at the time, and one of the six knows Dyson pretty well. Dyson attended a talk my husband gave at Princeton in 2008, and was part of the dinner group afterward. He didn't sign the petition of 200, [*] since he had some differences with the wording which he said it wasn't worth the organizers' time and effort to try to resolve, but he was in sympathy.

[*] That should have been the open letter. See post #8.

The "organized and institutional" branch of physics research has been co-opted, bribed and bought. This is not only sad news (I expected much better from physicists) but sad news since it indicates a decline in integrity which is an absolutely necessary ingredient to major advances in the physical sciences.

My husband had a very hard time coming to terms with the fact that physicists, too, can act this way.

Ellen

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "few of us" to whom Hal [Lewis] referred were six persons, including Hal and Larry and the dissenting member from that lunch meeting where the position statement was drafted (you might recall I mentioned that one of those present dissented).

After a sequence of more hassles and battles the Topical Committee is now set to announce the new position statement. "Informed observers" predict that the new statement will basically say the same as the old one, without "incontrovertible" but with the same meaning.

Here's a link to the members of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate Change, and also a link to the February 2014 newsletter of the group; here also the present APS statement and addendum.

Here's a link that details the process of the APS statement review: APS to Review Statement on Climate Change. I think I may be getting two processes confused (ie, that the Topic Group is charged with the work desired by the petition).**

From the topical group's newsletter, the chairman quotes from its remit:

“The objective of the GPC shall be to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge concerning the physics, measurement, and modeling of climate processes, within the domain of natural science and outside the domains of societal impact and policy, legislation and broader societal issues. The objective includes the integration of scientific knowledge and analysis methods across disciplines to address the dynamical complexities and uncertainties of climate physics.”

The group of six persons I mentioned in post #2 had some interchange with Dyson at the time, and one of the six knows Dyson pretty well. Dyson attended a talk my husband gave at Princeton in 2008, and was part of the dinner group afterward. He didn't sign the petition of 200, since he had some differences with the wording which he said it wasn't worth the organizers' time and effort to try to resolve, but he was in sympathy.

A couple of orientation questions, Ellen.

I am thinking you refer to events covered in the narrative found here, from October 2009: Climate Statement Gets Renewed Scrutiny. It mentions your husband and five others -- are these the 'group of six persons' you meant?

Also, the petition of 200 -- is the Roger Cohen 'petition' the same thing as the 'open letter' described at the link? Emphasis added.

The motivation for requesting this review was expressed by [Robert Austin] and five other physicists in the “Correspondence” section of the July 23 issue of Nature. In part they state: “We are among more than 50 current and former members of APS who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change. The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence.” They go on to decry the “subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.” In addition to Austin, those signing the communication were S. Fred Singer, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, and Roger Cohen.

I managed to find what I think is the full text of the petition/open letter -- this is what the signatories wished to replace the current one. Please correct me on any howlers in my understanding of the process.

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council:

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.
The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human –on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.
As current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned petition the APS Council to commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming. The assessment should consider findings representing the full scope of available scientific sources. The assessment is to be used as a basis for a new Statement on Climate Change that reflects the current state of scientific knowledge and its uncertainties. This Petition is to be provided to the membership for comment prior to action by the Council.

Thanks, Ellen for bringing your years of attention to the issues.

Here is another illuminating item, at WattsUpWithThat: Roger Cohen explaining his resignation from the Topical Group in October 2012:

Preferring to work within the Society to try to effect positive change, our group of petitioners and APS leaders of good will came to an agreement in 2010 to try to focus the discussion back where it belonged – on the science itself. Thus I joined an officially sanctioned committee to organize a new “topical group” within the APS. Bylaws were written and approved whose main characteristic was a declaration of focus on the science, and an avoidance of matters of policy, public opinion, or political views. Here is the key objective statement from the Bylaws:

It was thus hoped that the disagreement among APS membership would be diverted from attack and defense of the Statement to a discussion and scientific debate of the science itself.

“The objective of the GPC shall be to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge concerning the physics, measurement, and modeling of climate processes, within the domain of natural science and outside the domains of societal impact and policy, legislation and broader societal issues. The objective includes the integration of scientific knowledge and analysis methods across disciplines to address the dynamical complexities and uncertainties of climate physics.”

________________________

** see Plans Afoot for Topical Group On the Physics of Climate:

During the summer [of 2010], APS received two independent requests for the formation of a topical group focusing on the physics of climate. One was presented by APS Fellow Roger Cohen, who had privately circulated a petition to that effect and obtained the 200 member signatures needed to bring it to Council. The other came as an initiative of Council itself, which at its April meeting had authorized APS President Curtis Callan to poll the membership on their support for such a group; an email petition sent by him to the members of DCP, DBP, DCOMP, DAMOP and DFD in early August quickly received almost 800 signatures.

“It’s clear that there is a great deal of enthusiasm among the APS membership for the formation of a topical group on the physics of climate,” said Kate Kirby, APS Executive Officer. “There are a number of opportunities for the physics community to make substantial contributions to science in this area.”

Although the language of the two petitions differs in detail, with the Callan proposal defining the scope as the physics of “climate and the environment”, and the Cohen petition emphasizing that the topical group should not be concerned with “matters of policy, legislation and regulation”, both expressed a common goal (quoting the Cohen petition) of providing “a mechanism for physicists … to learn about and exchange views on the science, and to generally advance the physical understanding, of terrestrial climate.”

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen Stuttle wrote:

"My husband had a very hard time coming to terms with the fact that physicists, too, can act this way."

I have mentioned before that I witnessed scientific institutional corruption at a very early age. I was already aware of

it in some detail a few months after I turned 17 and have never taken anything the professionals have had to say for

granted. You don't have to call them on their BS in every case but keep the alternatives open in your mind when it is

clear what they are selling isn't the real deal.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

With the grab-bag way you present things, it could take hours to sort through and separate what you've gotten right and what you haven't, and I lack the hours to spare. Maybe I'll read through your post in detail later this week.

Just answering this part:

A couple of orientation questions, Ellen.

I am thinking you refer to events covered in the narrative found here, from October 2009: Climate Statement Gets Renewed Scrutiny. It mentions your husband and five others -- are these the 'group of six persons' you meant?

Also, the petition of 200 -- is the Roger Cohen 'petition' the same thing as the 'open letter' described at the link? Emphasis added.

Yes to the first question. No to the second.

Ellen

I screwed up in a detail about Dyson, post #5. It was the open letter he didn't sign because of some disagreement, which he didn't specify, with the wording.

I don't recall if he was asked to be a signatory on, and, if so, if he was a signatory on, Roger Cohen's petition.

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it strange how the old-timers can clearly see the corruption that has been wrought upon "organized and institutional science" I am fairly certain that Freeman Dyson, a physicist who was at the same level of ability as Richard Feynman would concur with Lewis' disgust.

The "organized and institutional" branch of physics research has been co-opted, bribed and bought. This is not only sad news (I expected much better from physicists) but sad news since it indicates a decline in integrity which is an absolutely necessary ingredient to major advances in the physical sciences.

Feynman wrote a brilliant piece in 2009:

"Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman
(Adapted from a Caltech commencement address given in 1974; taken from the book "Surely
You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!")
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros
horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas – which
was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became
organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well,so that we are now in the
scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how
witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked – or
very little of it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO's,or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP,and so forth. And I've concludedthat it's not a scientific world.
Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided toinvestigate why they did. And
what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I
found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First Istarted out by investigating various ideas of
mysticism and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of
hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this
kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed.
I didn't realize how MUCH there was. At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot
springs situated on a ledge about thirty feetabove the ocean.
One of my most pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those bathsand watch the waves crashing onto the rocky slope below, to gaze into the clear blue sky above,
and to study a beautiful nude as she quietly appears and settles intothe bath with me. One time I
sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know
her. Right away I began thinking, "Gee! How amI gonna get started talking to this beautiful
nude woman?"
I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her, "I'm, uh, studying massage. Could
I practice on you?" "Sure", she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a massage
table nearby. I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of anything like that!" He
starts to rub her big toe. "I think Ifeel it", he says. "I feel a kind of dent – is that the pituitary?" I
blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!" They looked at me, horrified – I
had blown my cover – and said, "It's reflexology!" I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be
meditating.
Now I would not expect his paper to start out that way.
However, on page two (2) he gets down to business and wonders...
So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science.
I think the educational and psychol ogical studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like
to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they
saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So
they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to
make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and
bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas – he's the controller – and they wait for the airplanes
to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked
before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things car go cult science, because
they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing
something essential, because the planes don't land.

http://nhn.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Capstone/Ethics/1974-CargoCultScience-Feynman.pdf

It's a great read.

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it strange how the old-timers can clearly see the corruption that has been wrought upon "organized and institutional science" I am fairly certain that Freeman Dyson, a physicist who was at the same level of ability as Richard Feynman would concur with Lewis' disgust.

The "organized and institutional" branch of physics research has been co-opted, bribed and bought. This is not only sad news (I expected much better from physicists) but sad news since it indicates a decline in integrity which is an absolutely necessary ingredient to major advances in the physical sciences.

Feynman wrote a brilliant piece in 2009:

"Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman
(Adapted from a Caltech commencement address given in 1974; taken from the book "Surely
You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!")
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros
horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas – which
was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became
organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well,so that we are now in the
scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how
witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked – or
very little of it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO's,or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP,and so forth. And I've concludedthat it's not a scientific world.
Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided toinvestigate why they did. And
what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I
found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First Istarted out by investigating various ideas of
mysticism and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of
hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this
kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed.
I didn't realize how MUCH there was. At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot
springs situated on a ledge about thirty feetabove the ocean.
One of my most pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those bathsand watch the waves crashing onto the rocky slope below, to gaze into the clear blue sky above,
and to study a beautiful nude as she quietly appears and settles intothe bath with me. One time I
sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know
her. Right away I began thinking, "Gee! How amI gonna get started talking to this beautiful
nude woman?"
I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her, "I'm, uh, studying massage. Could
I practice on you?" "Sure", she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a massage
table nearby. I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of anything like that!" He
starts to rub her big toe. "I think Ifeel it", he says. "I feel a kind of dent – is that the pituitary?" I
blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!" They looked at me, horrified – I
had blown my cover – and said, "It's reflexology!" I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be
meditating.
Now I would not expect his paper to start out that way.
However, on page two (2) he gets down to business and wonders...
So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science.
I think the educational and psychol ogical studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like
to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they
saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So
they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to
make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and
bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas – he's the controller – and they wait for the airplanes
to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked
before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things car go cult science, because
they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing
something essential, because the planes don't land.

http://nhn.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Capstone/Ethics/1974-CargoCultScience-Feynman.pdf

It's a great read.

A...

May I offer for your reading

Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci (May 15, 2010)

It is a very fair and reasonable book on how to distinguish sound science from balderdash.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I offer for your reading

Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci (May 15, 2010)

It is a very fair and reasonable book on how to distinguish sound science from balderdash.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thank you Bob...fine opening paragraph...Huxely, Hume and Paine...pretty good double play combination...equal to Tinkers to Evers to Chance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I offer for your reading

Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci (May 15, 2010)

It is a very fair and reasonable book on how to distinguish sound science from balderdash.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I just looked at the book description at the link you posted, and it makes it appear that the author believes that skeptics of AGW are the ones falling for nonsense or balderdash. Is that the position that the book takes?!!!

J

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at the book description at the link you posted, and it makes it appear that the author believes that skeptics of AGW are the ones falling for nonsense or balderdash. Is that the position that the book takes?!!!

J

There have been several recent books (last six or so years) discussing science versus pseudoscience, and bemoaning public ignorance of the difference and lack of knowledge of good science - while including scepticism on AGW as an example.

Really irritating, since the books might be ok in the other examples they give, but the result tends to backfire with reverse reasoning - since they're off on the AGW issue, maybe they're off on the other examples they use, too.

Ellen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My college geology professor was a young guy who had just finished his PhD. His advisor was from the old school which knew the days when plate tectonics was pseudoscience not to be discussed seriously in polite circles.

Any book published today giving an opinion concerning specific examples of what is and is not pseudoscience is likely to contain a great many errors and embrace any number of fallacies. I can find provable mistaken opinions from reputable sources all day long. AGW may be the biggest scam ever pulled off in terms of the sheer number of people involved but I would argue the damage done by John von Neumann in his "no hidden-variable theorem" of 1932 [already disproved by 1935] remains the greatest blunder in the history of science since modern science began under Newton. I can readily find references implying von Neumann was correct to this day from reputable sources all over the web. The refusal to correct this error once and for all is very much like the secular religion of AGW. It matters not that the issue was settled logically and scientifically nearly 80 years ago the believers want to believe and fighting the true believers is an endless and thankless task.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My college geology professor was a young guy who had just finished his PhD. His advisor was from the old school which knew the days when plate tectonics was pseudoscience not to be discussed seriously in polite circles.

Any book published today giving an opinion concerning specific examples of what is and is not pseudoscience is likely to contain a great many errors and embrace any number of fallacies. I can find provable mistaken opinions from reputable sources all day long. AGW may be the biggest scam ever pulled off in terms of the sheer number of people involved but I would argue the damage done by John von Neumann in his "no hidden-variable theorem" of 1932 [already disproved by 1935] remains the greatest blunder in the history of science since modern science began under Newton. I can readily find references implying von Neumann was correct to this day from reputable sources all over the web. The refusal to correct this error once and for all is very much like the secular religion of AGW. It matters not that the issue was settled logically and scientifically nearly 80 years ago the believers want to believe and fighting the true believers is an endless and thankless task.

Dennis

J.S. Bell pointed out von Neuman's errors 40 years ago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.S Bell pointed our von Neumann's error in 1964, Grete Hermann announced the error in 1935, Schrödinger wrote about the error in 1935, 1952 Bohm and Vigier showed that it had to be an error, Einstein and Peter Bergmann discussed the error [date unknown but Einstein died in 1955]. Only Bell worked publicly to attempt to correct the error - in his 1988 book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" Bell discusses how the physics and educational communities still fail to understand that the no hidden-variable theorem was an error and still treat it as though it was correct. You can still find the implication that the von Neumann was correct all over the web including in links from major universities.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man whose wealth was based on selling cancer sticks to children...thanks Al...

Al Gore Calls Global Warming Skeptics “Immoral, Unethical And Despicable”…

120827_al_gore_reuters_328-550x298.jpg

Keepin’ it classy.

Via Honolulu Civil Beat:

The man who was almost president graced Honolulu with his presence Tuesday and walked us through a “seminar of sustainability.”

By turns a university professor, a wry observer, a recovering politician, a joke teller and a Southern preacher, Al Gore fired up an audience of thousands at the Stan Sheriff Center to believe that global warming can be stopped. But it’s possible only if each of us does our part.

“Ultimately, we are going to win this thing,” he said, one of many statements met with hearty applause.

He also managed to repeatedly gush over fellow Democrats Neil Abercrombie and Brian Schatz, who he singled out multiple times as leading the fight here at home and in Washington to tackle the environmental crisis head on. [...]

But Gore cited two “game changers” in recent years that will help. The first is the growing realization from even climate-change deniers that something seems to be strange with the weather. The second is the exponential growth in photovoltaic solar panels, driven largely by consumer demand for lower prices.

The “barriers” to doing something about climate change are business and political interests that profit off of fossil fuels — “dirty energy that causes dirty weather.” He compared fake science from polluters stating that humans are not to blame for the climate to tobacco companies that used to hire actors to play doctors who denied cigarettes were dangerous.

“That’s immoral, unethical and despicable,
” he said of both.

http://weaselzippers.us/183066-al-gore-calls-global-warming-skeptics-immoral-unethical-and-despicable/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He and his daddy sold a legal product to willing buyers. What is your complaint?

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He and his daddy sold a legal product to willing buyers. What is your complaint?

Ba'al Chatzaf

No complaint at all, just stated some facts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore has increased his personal wealth by an estimated $100 million dollars through various publications, speaking fees, and other payments related to his pushing the pseudo-science hysteria of AGW. It has also gotten him various paid positions on corporate boards where he is further able to push his agenda.

That is still trivial to the trillion dollar payday those who will broker carbon credits expect to cash in on.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Al Gore has increased his personal wealth by an estimated $100 million dollars . . . .

end quote

I was impressed when he sold his network to Arabs and some of his staff resigned.

We are now being told that the sea level may rise by 150 feet. I dont think so. In a half centurys time in my mid Atlantic area, the beach houses on the Atlantic are still the same distance from the Ocean.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how to settle science, like when Obama claimed in his last State of the Union Address that man-made climate change is settled for once and for all.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.


Just make bare-faced lies and persecute scientists who disagree.

CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM: THE SCANDAL GROWS
by JAMES DELINGPOLE
16 May 2014
Breitbart

From the article:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row - has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons.

. . .

What's more significant is that this story has made it to the front page of the Times. Like most of the mainstream media, the Times has been remarkably slow to latch onto the corruption, malfeasance, waste, dishonesty, bullying and lies which are rife throughout the climate change industry. If it hadn't been for the internet and sites like Watts Up With That? and blogposts like this one the Climategate scandal would have passed almost without notice.

Finally, it seems, the MSM is beginning to wake up to something it really ought to have picked up on long ago: the greatest and most expensive scientific scandal in history, in which a cabal of lavishly grant-funded, activist-scientists from Britain to Australia, Germany to the US, has exaggerated the evidence for "man-made global warming" and attempted ruthlessly to suppress the work of sceptical scientists who dispute the "consensus."

. . .

The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."

John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.

But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.

Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.

Something's getting settled, all right. In the mainstream, at that.

But it may not be what the man-made climate change gang want.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the corruption and fraud is settled we just need to start putting the scum in Orange jumpsuits.

Possibly the largest global theft of monies in history and we are not prosecuting these pricks?

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and Consensus??????

About 150 years ago almost one hundred percent of certified physicists subscribed to the existence of aether, the elastic medium which is supposed to carry light waves from Here to There.

So much for consensus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and Consensus??????

About 150 years ago almost one hundred percent of certified physicists subscribed to the existence of aether, the elastic medium which is supposed to carry light waves from Here to There.

So much for consensus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But that consensus is no good or irrelevant now. That is no longer the consensus view for one and two even if it still were the consensus view today, it what way can it be used to throttle industrialization ? (er I mean save the planet)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now