Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

[Makalakumu]

There is no "well read" in science, not at the level of the practicing scientist. You can't read a few reviews here and there and call yourself knowledgeable. To stay knowledgeable in a field, it must be your job. We all devote hours every single week to staying on top of our disciplines, and it never ends. There is such a vast amount of intricate and interlocking knowledge, much of it practical, that you can't possibly read a small amount and be knowledgeable. A good example: I love advanced physics and astrophysics. I read quite a lot. But my understanding is stunted and puny, not the least because I don't have a solid grasp of the math. If I wanted to be at the practicing scientist level in quantum physics or particle physics or whatever, I would have to start at the beginning and devote most of my time to it. It would be the work of years.

You can't really appreciate how vast science is, even in our narrow specialties, until you try to master if yourself. Like I said about myself, 11 years and 10 papers, and I'm still a trainee.

Granted, I agree that it could be argued that there comes a point in any specialty where this is the case. In my specialty, this certainly can be argued. It isn't totally exclusive, however and I think you probably could find exceptions if you looked.

However, how do you know that we are dealing with jargon on that kind of technical level? Also, how do you assess the conflicting opinions of scientists in the same field from the outside looking in? In this case, we have scientists in the same field, using the same data, and coming up with two very different conclusions. How do you choose?

Lastly, how is anyone supposed to vote for representation based on opinions they are unqualified to judge and for representatives that have little if any background in science? This last question implies that our political system is ripe for being scammed...

 

[Empty Hands]

However, how do you know that we are dealing with jargon on that kind of technical level?

I'm not talking about jargon, I'm talking about knowledge. You might understand perfectly well what all the words mean, and even have a good grasp of the concepts. Let's say however that I claim in my scientific paper that Protein A has a certain effect when treated with Compound B in Context C. That might be compelling to you, but what about the ancillary knowledge that Compound B is not valid in Context C? There are thousands of little intersecting knowledge points like this that go into evaluating every scientific paper I read. Every paper is weighed against the sum of my knowledge from many intersecting contexts. It takes years to build up this kind of gestalt, and it is very difficult to evaluate papers without that context.

Also, how do you assess the conflicting opinions of scientists in the same field from the outside looking in? In this case, we have scientists in the same field, using the same data, and coming up with two very different conclusions. How do you choose?

Generally, you don't. Over time, the field will come to a consensus based on the weight of repeated evidence, sharpened by criticism and interaction between scientists in the field. How could you possibly evaluate their positions on your own? Even in the field, we generally don't "choose" which findings and arguments to believe, who we believe is shaped by whose data can be repeatedly verified by other laboratories around the world. If none of your data can ever be replicated, people stop believing it.

Lastly, how is anyone supposed to vote for representation based on opinions they are unqualified to judge and for representatives that have little if any background in science? This last question implies that our political system is ripe for being scammed...

To our government's credit, scientists are heavily involved in the decision making processes that bear on science. The heads of the NIH, NSF, and other agencies are all scientists. Funding decisions at the NIH, and probably other agencies, are based on peer review and scoring of grants by independent scientists from all around the country. There are oftentimes hearings where well known and respected scientists are called to testify, and sometimes the representatives even listen. We should not have a technocracy, but you really do need that knowledge to make effective scientific decisions. They aren't always listened to, but still.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm not talking about jargon, I'm talking about knowledge. You might understand perfectly well what all the words mean, and even have a good grasp of the concepts. Let's say however that I claim in my scientific paper that Protein A has a certain effect when treated with Compound B in Context C. That might be compelling to you, but what about the ancillary knowledge that Compound B is not valid in Context C? There are thousands of little intersecting knowledge points like this that go into evaluating every scientific paper I read. Every paper is weighed against the sum of my knowledge from many intersecting contexts. It takes years to build up this kind of gestalt, and it is very difficult to evaluate papers without that context.

Jargon and knowledge are two sides of the same coin. But that's a side issue.

There are two points that I'd like to express.

1. Not all scientific arguments reach that level of technicality.
2. If you are "unqualified" to comment on climate science, how can you hold an opinion on it? How can you vote based on that opinion? How is the public supposed to consume/digest science?

Generally, you don't. Over time, the field will come to a consensus based on the weight of repeated evidence, sharpened by criticism and interaction between scientists in the field. How could you possibly evaluate their positions on your own? Even in the field, we generally don't "choose" which findings and arguments to believe, who we believe is shaped by whose data can be repeatedly verified by other laboratories around the world. If none of your data can ever be replicated, people stop believing it.

This is the ideal, but it is not always the practice. The Climategate documents bear witness to this. There are many other cases in the history of science where this was not the case. Therefore, perhaps it is most proper to "I don't know" in response to a scientific debate with conflicting opinions such as this. That is not what people do, however. People do "choose" sides based off of a criteria that has yet to be defined in this discussion.

To our government's credit, scientists are heavily involved in the decision making processes that bear on science. The heads of the NIH, NSF, and other agencies are all scientists. Funding decisions at the NIH, and probably other agencies, are based on peer review and scoring of grants by independent scientists from all around the country. There are oftentimes hearings where well known and respected scientists are called to testify, and sometimes the representatives even listen. We should not have a technocracy, but you really do need that knowledge to make effective scientific decisions. They aren't always listened to, but still.

What about captured agencies? What about revolving doors of influence, money, and ideology? How much can you trust these agencies when they have become so politicized?

 

[CanuckMA]

2. If you are "unqualified" to comment on climate science, how can you hold an opinion on it? How can you vote based on that opinion? How is the public supposed to consume/digest science?

You can have a passing knowledge on the science and form an opinion. That does not mean your opinion is correct. Voting based on your opinion means that your vote may be incorrect. The public can digest science to a poiny, most of us will never have the deep understanding of any one complex facet of any discipline. I have a fair undestanding of a lot of science, does not mean I'm qualified to make judgement on any theories. Any more than a biologist can come out and state that string theory is bunk.

 

[Empty Hands]

1. Not all scientific arguments reach that level of technicality.

Perhaps not expressly, but it is always there lurking underneath the surface. That knowledge underpins any scientific argument made. If I claim that evolution is true, there is several hundred years worth of data and thought from competing and interlocking disciplines behind it. Even making the claim that a fossil is "old" by radiocarbon dating is an argument that encompasses everything from geology to nuclear physics. If you then want to claim that radiocarbon dating does not in fact prove that fossils are old (a claim made constantly by creationists) then all of that underlying data must be addressed.

2. If you are "unqualified" to comment on climate science, how can you hold an opinion on it? How can you vote based on that opinion? How is the public supposed to consume/digest science?

If you haven't made at least a reasonable study of it, then you aren't entitled to an opinion. At least a valid one. You basically have two choices: master the data yourself, which will take years, or trust the weight of opinion of the experts. In other words, it is unreasonable for a lay person to take the word of a few warming skeptics (that are actual scientists, I don't count politicos) over the thousands of other scientists who have helped form the consensus.

This is the ideal, but it is not always the practice. The Climategate documents bear witness to this. There are many other cases in the history of science where this was not the case.

Science is a self-correcting process, and always wins in the end. Political constructions of science, from Lysenkoism to "German Physics", have always failed because the data does not support them. The irrational predilections of even famous scientists (like Einstein) have always failed because the data do not support them. Science is larger than human failings.

Therefore, perhaps it is most proper to "I don't know" in response to a scientific debate with conflicting opinions such as this.

There is no scientific debate here. The scientific debate is largely settled, at least over the basic question. What we have here is a political debate that is twisting science to its own ends. Perhaps given your mindset you can appreciate that the "controversy" is largely being manufactured by those seeking to protect their economic interests, mainly corporations involved in traditional energy and heavily polluting industries.

What about captured agencies? What about revolving doors of influence, money, and ideology? How much can you trust these agencies when they have become so politicized?

You just have to stay on top of them and be vigilant. Same as anything else. I'm really only familiar with the NIH, but they are remarkably non-political.

 

[Makalakumu]

You can have a passing knowledge on the science and form an opinion. That does not mean your opinion is correct. Voting based on your opinion means that your vote may be incorrect.

How do you find out if your opinion is incorrect? Do you do this consistently?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you haven't made at least a reasonable study of it, then you aren't entitled to an opinion. At least a valid one.

Not true! First, as you know, anyone can have an opinion. But second, the validity of argument is based not just on scientific veracity but also upon logical constructs. I do NOT have to be an expert in climate science to spot flaws in arguments. And there are many.

I've read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I doubt many laypersons have. It's worth reading. I don't have a lot of heartburn over the contents. I do have a lot of heartburn over how those contents are often portrayed.

You said, I believe, that climate change is settled science. It may be. But public opinion over it is far from settled. In fact, the tide (no pun intended) is clearly running against it at the moment. The report can say what it says, and news organizations can twist it into saying whatever hand-wringing OMG! thing they want it to say, but the public has largely had enough of it.

It will be interesting to see where things go from here.

 

[CanuckMA]

How do you find out if your opinion is incorrect? Do you do this consistently?

Absent of reading/hearing more arguments and trying to decipher the logic and validity of them, as well as knowing the competence of the argument makers, You can't really find out.

 

[geezer]

Absent of reading/hearing more arguments and trying to decipher the logic and validity of them, as well as knowing the competence of the argument makers, You can't really find out.

You obviously have never been married.

 

[Makalakumu]

Perhaps not expressly, but it is always there lurking underneath the surface. That knowledge underpins any scientific argument made. If I claim that evolution is true, there is several hundred years worth of data and thought from competing and interlocking disciplines behind it. Even making the claim that a fossil is "old" by radiocarbon dating is an argument that encompasses everything from geology to nuclear physics. If you then want to claim that radiocarbon dating does not in fact prove that fossils are old (a claim made constantly by creationists) then all of that underlying data must be addressed.

This is true in some circumstances, but not all. The technicality of some arguments in science is variable. You do not need to belong to a technocratic elite in order to understand science.

If you haven't made at least a reasonable study of it, then you aren't entitled to an opinion. At least a valid one. You basically have two choices: master the data yourself, which will take years, or trust the weight of opinion of the experts. In other words, it is unreasonable for a lay person to take the word of a few warming skeptics (that are actual scientists, I don't count politicos) over the thousands of other scientists who have helped form the consensus.

This is a sad thought actually. Imagine all of the science teachers who are believe that they are preparing their students for citizenship by giving them a liberal education in science. Are you saying that they (we) are wasting our time?

Also, have you considered the amount of scientists who are skeptical of global warming? This is a fallacy, because the numbers shouldn't matter, it's the strength of the arguments and ideas. However, I can understand that if you hold the opinion that only a technocratic elite can hold opinions on science, then you would have to play a game based off of the force of numbers and not ideas. That said, I'll play within this framework and offer a couple of bits of information...

1. Here is a list of scientists who are skeptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

2. Here is an article about a petition of 31,000 scientists who are skeptical of global warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3214

If we are simply going to play a numbers game, the obvious reply is going to be, "How many of these are climate scientists?" I'll get to that below.

What I'm talking about here, goes deeper then that. It goes back to the "either/or" choice you offered the readers above, which is a fallacy. The premise you offer is indefensible, there are more choices then the two being presented.

Science is a self-correcting process, and always wins in the end. Political constructions of science, from Lysenkoism to "German Physics", have always failed because the data does not support them. The irrational predilections of even famous scientists (like Einstein) have always failed because the data do not support them. Science is larger than human failings.

While I agree that this is the ideal, it assumes that the velocity of information isn't restricted. When you have a "marketplace" of ideas that are competing that incorporates diverse personalities and interests and these people/organizations are "allowed" to share their information you can achieve this ideal. If this process is tampered with, science is unable to glimpse reality.

The Climategate documents are a record of this. They document the manipulation, fabrication and dissemination of flawed data. They document a corruption of the peer review process. They document the harassment of skeptics from the pulling of their funding by various bureaucratic agencies to the denial of tenure to researchers. They document a destruction of original evidence. They document efforts to frustrate efforts to independently investigate (aka...show repeatability). The whole idea that you can trust a group of scientists with lots of political pull is blown apart by these documents. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere and you better be damn careful before you engage in the "truth by numbers" scientific opinion generation method.

There is no scientific debate here. The scientific debate is largely settled, at least over the basic question. What we have here is a political debate that is twisting science to its own ends. Perhaps given your mindset you can appreciate that the "controversy" is largely being manufactured by those seeking to protect their economic interests, mainly corporations involved in traditional energy and heavily polluting industries.

So now I'm not believing in the right conspiracies? LOL! All joking aside...

It's settled or unsettled depending on how you look at it and we still haven't discussed the hidden criteria that allows you to make this determination. You chose to believe this and you chose to kick various peices of data to the curb.

Also, I would like you to consider that in the late 90s, what you said about multinational corporations and global warming may have been true. Now, that is not the case. Fossil fuel giants and major polluters support carbon taxes and cap and trade.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=98&contentId=7033749

The reasoning behind this has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with finance. There are trillions of dollars to be made in CDOs in regards to carbon taxes and carbon credits.

Can you honestly have a marketplace of ideas with that kind of money sloshing through it?

You just have to stay on top of them and be vigilant. Same as anything else. I'm really only familiar with the NIH, but they are remarkably non-political.

The NIH has a revolving door industry execs like every other federal agency. Google it.

It's political and the multinationals control the politics.

In my opinion, we've entered a New Age of Science. Science is becoming a tool for propaganda and the days of free inquiry are ending. Unless we can teach a generation of students about the history and nature of science soon, we'll get to the point where the technocratic elite will merge with the autocrats and oligarchs.

 

[Empty Hands]

But second, the validity of argument is based not just on scientific veracity but also upon logical constructs. I do NOT have to be an expert in climate science to spot flaws in arguments. And there are many.

Somewhat true, but limited. Many aspects of science, such as quantum mechanics, are not in the least bit "logical" from the perspective of the scientist. Logic is a set of rules, and like any set of rules, it depends greatly on its foundational postulates, which may not always be correct. To go back to quantum mechanics again, fundamental particles violate even the most basic rules of logic, like x=x. At the end of the day, data rules. If you have the data, you are to be believed. If you do not, then no matter how logical or compelling your argument, you are not to be believed.

Not that even every scientist agrees with my strict empiricism. Einstein for instance didn't even like experimentation, and felt that the laws of the universe could be reasoned out. With relativity, that approach served him well. With quantum mechanics, it led him astray.

I do have a lot of heartburn over how those contents are often portrayed.

Which is, of course, a red herring argument as to the veracity of the basic question. It doesn't matter how anyone portrays the data, because the deniers insist on dismissing the data as well as the bad arguments that go too far. The data must be addressed if warming is to be dismissed.

You said, I believe, that climate change is settled science. It may be. But public opinion over it is far from settled. In fact, the tide (no pun intended) is clearly running against it at the moment. The report can say what it says, and news organizations can twist it into saying whatever hand-wringing OMG! thing they want it to say, but the public has largely had enough of it.

That is yet another red herring argument, even if it is true. It doesn't matter if every single person in the world were against global warming. The data is what matters. To insist otherwise is the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

Of course, the reason the public's opinion is turning is mainly due to bought and paid for propaganda. It's not difficult to find out who is funding the professional "skeptics".

 

[Empty Hands]

This is a sad thought actually. Imagine all of the science teachers who are believe that they are preparing their students for citizenship by giving them a liberal education in science. Are you saying that they (we) are wasting our time?

Let's take a step back. My exchange here started to address scientists in other fields (Hal Lewis) dismissing an entire field and calling it a "scam" when they have no background in the field. That has been the context of my discussion. In order to make such a judgment, you cannot be a well read layperson. You must have a solid grasp of the data. That is a different claim from saying that no one can ever be educated in science, or that science teachers are wasting their time. I have not said that. Being as educated as possible in science is a good thing for laypeople. That basic education however in no way empowers them to challenge the findings of scientists in the field.

I do remember my science education. It was entirely didactic. We learned a long list of factoids and body part names and enzymatic cascades. There was no true understanding of how the parts fit together or a good attempt to harmonize. Perhaps with good reason, because at the time, we had no ability to gain a true understanding. After all these years of study, my understanding is still incomplete, and I know it. I know I wasn't alone at that age either, because I've tried to explain what I do or tutor others in biology, and they gain no true understanding. They grasp a tiny little piece. They basically accept what I tell them on faith, and I know it.

I've tried to impart the vastness of what we do here, and I don't know if it's getting through. It is a truly monumental mountain range of knowledge, and even the well educated mostly dabble in the foothills. Even we specialists only master one peak. Would you feel a yellow belt in karate could tell the grandmaster what the proper application of bunkai are? Imagine someone without that training and knowledge coming up to me and claiming my work, the work I've spent years on using my own two hands, is completely false. Would you accept the same in my place? Why should the climate scientists?

Why should we accept the words of amateurs over the words of those who have made it their life's work? It makes absolutely no sense, and we wouldn't do it in other walks of life, until the findings make us uncomfortable and challenge our political views.

The premise you offer is indefensible, there are more choices then the two being presented.

I could feed you 6 contradictory lines of ******** about my field, and you would probably never know. I could do the same to almost anyone. Anyone with specialized knowledge in almost any walk of life could. Until that is no longer true, the premise is not indefensible. How can you claim to pass judgment on my knowledge and work when you can't even tell when I'm making stuff up about it?

Yes, by all means, be as educated as you can. I certainly am, I love learning about many fields. I know however at the end of the day that I have no ability to decide that karate is ********, or string theory is ********, or global warming is ********, or anything else I have an incomplete understanding of.

There are no shortcuts in life. If you want the knowledge, you have to work for it. Everything has to be worked for. You can't cut to the end of the path and call yourself done.

This is not to say however that the words of the expert alone are enough to make something true. Data and empiricism are what truly matters. The stark truth though is that the layperson has no ability to judge the data appropriately. That will mostly be the work of other experts.

The Climategate documents are a record of this. They document the manipulation, fabrication and dissemination of flawed data.

By two scientists. Who were cleared of wrongdoing, also. I can name more than two scientists in biology that have fabricated data and engaged in fraud, and lost their careers because of it. Yet somehow, we don't hear how biomedical science is all a giant scam. That's because people like their new drugs, but they don't like the thought of having to change their lives to alter global warming. I'm not terribly impressed.

You chose to believe this and you chose to kick various peices of data to the curb.

Actually, I have made no evaluation of the data. I have no ability to do so authoritatively, and I know it. I've seen some, but not comprehensively. I certainly haven't kicked anything to the curb. I base my conclusion on the vast majority of the field, who have made their expert opinions known. They claim the evidence is overwhelming, and I have seen nothing to call that conclusion into question. Certainly not the opinions of a bunch of engineers and other scientific types who don't even have a mastery of the data.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Somewhat true, but limited. Many aspects of science, such as quantum mechanics, are not in the least bit "logical" from the perspective of the scientist. Logic is a set of rules, and like any set of rules, it depends greatly on its foundational postulates, which may not always be correct. To go back to quantum mechanics again, fundamental particles violate even the most basic rules of logic, like x=x. At the end of the day, data rules. If you have the data, you are to be believed. If you do not, then no matter how logical or compelling your argument, you are not to be believed.

I am not challenging the data by logical argument, but rather the presentation of the conclusions. The IPPC Final Report was very carefully worded. Reporting by media, celebrities, and even (IMHO biased) scientists was not. Careful statements of probability were glossed over, ignored, or simply lied about in order to create a more compelling case for immediate action. These logical flaws are in the arguments presented as fact, not in the raw data or the conclusions of the IPPC.

Not that even every scientist agrees with my strict empiricism. Einstein for instance didn't even like experimentation, and felt that the laws of the universe could be reasoned out. With relativity, that approach served him well. With quantum mechanics, it led him astray.

I am not trying to imply that I can deduce new facts from logical argument with regard to climate science.

Which is, of course, a red herring argument as to the veracity of the basic question. It doesn't matter how anyone portrays the data, because the deniers insist on dismissing the data as well as the bad arguments that go too far. The data must be addressed if warming is to be dismissed.

I do not dismiss warming. Rather, I adhere to the conclusions of the IPPC Final Report and believe that there is doubt whether or not GW is actually anthropogenic, and that there is doubt whether or not the agency of man can reverse the warming trend. I don't dismiss it, I embrace the uncertainty expressed by the IPPC report.

That is yet another red herring argument, even if it is true. It doesn't matter if every single person in the world were against global warming. The data is what matters. To insist otherwise is the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

No amount of opinion can change a fact. But it can change funding, and it was that which I was speaking of. If nobody believes it, it's not going to get any more money, and that's that.

Of course, the reason the public's opinion is turning is mainly due to bought and paid for propaganda. It's not difficult to find out who is funding the professional "skeptics".

I think a lot of public opinion was formed long before the current 'Climategate', back when the pissing and moaning over the Kyoto Protocols was going on. A lot of people don't like being condescended to, and I think scientists, politicians, celebrities, and generic tree huggers ignored that and now they're paying a price for it.

I'm just saying that science aside, it still requires a lot of explanation and persuasion to get it done, since it involves a lot of tax money and a lot of sacrifice by all. I probably would have eschewed the 'sky is falling' crapola as well as the 'you idiots just don't get it' nonsense that we were subjected to. Scientists often are not terribly good at communicating. This time they stepped on their cranks and this is what happens.

 

[CanuckMA]

You obviously have never been married.

Actually, coming up on 28 years later this year.

 

[WC_lun]

On one hand, I see political arguements started by a man who has no scientific background and now recants those arguements (a former Bush staffer). On the other hand there is a possibly biased arguement made by a majority of experts in the field. Given the possible consequences and which arguement has the experts' support, I know which direction I'll act in. Yeah, I'll try to conserve. Seems only smart, even if the experts' arguement turns out to be mistaken.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

On one hand, I see political arguements started by a man who has no scientific background and now recants those arguements (a former Bush staffer). On the other hand there is a possibly biased arguement made by a majority of experts in the field. Given the possible consequences and which arguement has the experts' support, I know which direction I'll act in. Yeah, I'll try to conserve. Seems only smart, even if the experts' arguement turns out to be mistaken.

What if the reports that say what the experts conclude are incorrect instead?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

The experts talk about likelihood of what will happen, not what will happen. They talk about the likelihood of human causation, not proof that global warming was anthropogenic. Somehow that's not how it's been getting reported.

 

[Ramirez]

Bob Park's post on it

http://www.bobpark.org/

. INCONTROVERTIBLE: APS FELLOW HAL LEWIS RESIGNS MEMBERSHIP.

Hal Lewis, a Fellow of the APS, has resigned his APS membership of 67 years. News stories described his resignation as a protest of the official APS position on global-warming; but that's not quite what his resignation letter says. He begins by recounting how things were before the serpent persuaded physicists to taste the fruit of the money tree. An oversight committee of "towering physicists beyond reproach" assured the independence of the study panel. The second paragraph is Hals actual resignation: "How different it is now," he writes. "The giants no longer walk the earth. The money flood has become the raison detre 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." Hal couldnt resist pissing on the APS Global Warming Statement, which he thinks is a scam. The APS statement uses the word "incontrovertible" to describe the evidence for or against global warming. Incontrovertible should be unacceptable to physicists. What sets physics apart from other ways of knowing is openness to revision if better information becomes available. Openness to new knowledge is the most important concept science can offer the world.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

EH,

Although I can agree with you about the fact that the data is what it is, isn't it essentially meaningless unless it is interpreted, is it not. That then can lead to the experts, for whatever reason, giving a personally biased interpretation of the facts.


In my admittedly infantile understanding of climate science, I have no chance of refuting any climatologist interpretation of the data. However, some of what I have seen leads me to skepticism regarding those who advance a belief in anthropogenic global warming.

The Climate-gate e-mails. Sorry, but I am not convinced when their supporters "show" that the effects of those efforts were meaningless.

The issue that some of the belief in global warming is based off of historical trends, when even they admit that the data for such is inconclusive.

And what I also decry is the suppression, whether it be in academia or the media, of scientists who speak out against anthropogenic global warming. What about people like Richard Lindzen (atmospheric physicist), William Grey (professor of Atmospheric science), Tad Murty (Phd in oceanography and meteorology), Tim Patterson (paleoclimatoglogist), Fred Singer (atmospheric physicist).

I admit, I tend to be a skeptic of anything that doesn't fit into my world view. I think everyone is. So, being a person who has merely a passing interest in climate change (as I have no ability to set any type of policy on the issue), when I see things such as the above, and then the ad hominem attacks that are associated with scientists who disagree, I have a hard time believing it.

 

[elder999]

The release of these documents hopefully put the globalist Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade scams six feet under.

It’s not a “scam.” It’s a capitalist solution to the problem, and a common one, actually. More to the point, the popular meme that it will raise utility rates-costing all of us money and sending us into a television less, artificial lightless, microwave ovenless dark age is something of a canard. Utility rate cases are decided in most jurisdictions by a public service commission or other body. A “rate case” is the basis for a utilities passing on capital costs to rate payers. In most cases (not all) where utilities have tried to make the costs of mandated pollution controls part of their rate case, such costs have been disallowed. Prominent (and relevant) examples can be found in the controls for fly ash and sulphur dioxide. In the case of baghouses-the most common form of flyash control- these retrofits are usually disallowed to such an extent that it’s become rather standard for utilities to actually shut down one or two units on a site in order to be able to afford “eating” the costs of the retrofit. This is what occurred at several of Xcel Energy’s sites in the metro Denver area: they “retired” two units and retrofitted the remainder. It’s precisely what is planned to occur at the Four Corners Generation Station outside Farmington, NM: they’ll likely shut down three units, and retrofit the remaining two.

The case of sulphur dioxide (SO2) is even more relevant. Everyone remembers the screaming in the ‘70s and 80s about “acid rain.” This phenomena is principally caused by SO2 released from coal burning plants, though some is caused by nitrogen as well. In any case, in order to combat this, a cap and trade system was put in place-this was meant to encourage utilities to install emission control equipment. Basically, it allows utilities to trade credit for removal of SO2, either within their system or from utility to utility. In many plants, removal is far in excess of what is required by law, and they can trade credit with utilities where this equipment is under repair, or hasn’t been installed yet. What has happened because of this is an installation of equipment at plants across the country at lower than anticipated costs to utilities and consumers, as well as an overall reduction in SO2 emissions and achieving the target goals of the laws that set up the cap and trade system and required the equipment-an achievement that took place a full three years before the deadline. The same might prove to be true for CO2-if anyone ever figures out how to handle the stuff in a way that can be retrofitted to existing plants. Make no mistake, CO2 is a real atmospheric problem, whatever your beliefs, opinions, considered opinions, or whatever you know or think you know about global warming-rhetoric about “trees and exhalations” notwithstanding. CO2 in our atmosphere is currently running about 390 ppm-higher than it’s been in at least 800,000 years, and possibly much longer. Most of our atmospheric oxygen came from phytoplankton near the surface of the earth’s seas, and phytoplankton, like their more familiar earthbound counterparts-trees utilize atmospheric CO2 to do so. However, there’s been a 40% reduction in worldwide phytoplankton since 1950 due to-you guessed it: warmer oceans. Higher temperatures make photosynthesis more difficult.

In any case, figure out a way to keep CO2 from burning coal being released to the atmosphere, and you’ll be rich beyond all possible dreams of avairice.

 

[elder999]

Sometimes it's a tyranny, sometimes it's a decades long training process in order to become truly knowledgeable in the field. I've spent 11 years training in my field now, 15 if you count my undergraduate degree, and despite my PhD, I'm still considered a "trainee". I've authored 10 papers now, with a few more on the way, and still a "trainee". Do you know what variables to take into account when performing a non-linear regression of a drug response plot? Do you know how MAPK proteins interface with TNFalpha receptors to induce inflammation and cell stress? If I told you that RANTES is the natural ligand of the kappa opioid receptor, could you tell me if I was right or wrong?

Truly knowing a field is the work of a lifetime. I have no ability to tell Hal Lewis (or Elder999 for that matter) the first thing about physics, and they have no ability to tell me my cell signaling work is incorrect. That is why we have peer review, because the peers are the only ones with the knowledge to even begin to evaluate the work. Can I make pronouncements about the field of climate science or knowledgeably dismiss the entire field? Not a chance, and neither can Hal Lewis, or anyone else here. Much less the legions of committed ideologues that have decided what the truth is about an entire scientific discipline based on their political views without the slightest backing or evidence.

While there's some truth to many of your statements about scientific fields, the fact remains that it's not at all unusual for some (many?) of us to be somewhat polymathic-it's almost impossible to be a staff physicist at LANSCE without some ( a LOT) of electronics and some (a LOT) of programming ability-some of that in somewhat esoteric and obsolete systems and languages to boot. I'd also take issue with your statement about "no such thing as well read." While many scientists are comfortably monomaniacal, and live, breathe and eat their work , many more (I think) have hobbies and areas of expertise beyond their field-I cannot tell you how many physicists, like Chick Keller are also expert archaelogists, or mountain climbers- he's both, though he doesn't climb much-as well as excellent musicians. The fellow who runs the weapons division at the lab is a collector of Ferraris (I think Los ALamos is the smallest city in the country to have a "Ferrari Club..) and does all his own mechanical work on all three Ferraris......as well as his bicycle, and he makes telescopes....

......but, yeah, "biology?" Mostly Greek to me....no, wait, I can handle Greek, make that Klingon. :lol:

IN any case, in all the noise, many of us are missing the larger point, which is, well....LOOK AT MY SIGNATURE. :lol:

Seriously. This whole argument is just part of the process-and seeing the process as it takes place. Again, I have to remind everyone that science doesn't necessarily provide "answers." It provides models, and these models change.....

Aristarchus of Samos was the first to propose a heliocentric solar system in 390 BC.

Copernicus cited Aristarchus when he proposed his heliocentic model, in 1544-a full 38 years after he conceived it. WHy the delay? Well, he'd circulated a manuscript earlier for peer review, and, while it was well received in some circles, the interest of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as a direct condemnation by Martin Luther, discouraged him. He started his work in 1506, probably finished it around 1530, and didn't publish until he was about dead-in fact, he died in 1544.....then came Galileo, who-well, we know what sort of trouble he got into, even though he rejected Kepler somewhat, he still upset the apple cart by removing Earth from the center of the universe, and giving us a model of our solar system that we all know to be fact-I won't even bore you with the centuries of "discussion" it took to arrive there.


I think someone already mentioned Einstein's famous resistance to quantum theory-"God does not play dice with the universe," except, of course, when he does, apparently. A case of a scientist changing-relucatantly-his mind.

Thn of course, there's the whole fuss over the discovery of HIV/AIDS, as seen here, back in 2008:

The issue of who discovered HIV became a bitter dispute in the mid-1980s when it became clear there would be huge revenues from diagnostic tests derived from the discovery. Another scientist, Professor Robert Gallo at the University of the Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, also claimed rights to the discovery.
There was an acrimonious dispute over patent ownership which culminated in an out of court settlement and a joint statement by then US president Ronald Reagan and French president Jacques Chirac in which both sides agreed to split the proceeds evenly.
Professor John Oxford, a virologist at Queen Mary, University of London, said he felt Gallo deserved equal credit and to award the prize to all three would have drawn a line under the controversy.
"It doesn't land pleasantly on my tongue. It doesn't taste right," he said. "My first reaction is 'poor old Gallo' ... I feel sorry they haven't linked all three of them." Oxford said he felt that zur Hausen's work, though important, was in a different league. "It's not such a big discovery."

Scientists: boring, staid, stodgy, dignified, and bound by facts.
Unless, of course, they're being downright territorial-in which case we're a bunch of evil old queens.....:lol:



The arguments about global warming, global climate change, or the lack thereof are all pretty much the same thing: mired in politics of interior and exterior nature, causing all sorts of fear about what they mean: economically, theologically, spiritually. No, really: theologically-what does "have dominion over the earth" mean on a planet where we can cause it to change so radically?Etc., etc., etc. In the end, we'll have a model, though it may be too late to do us any good-in the end, we'll have facts, probably in forms we won't care for.