An important scientist resigns, partly due to the ClimateGate scandal

[WildHorse]

``

 

[werepossum]

Wow. I wish him well, but he's fooling himself if he's serious about the "I hope we're still friends". Considering that his resignation is due to widespread corruption and he is duly cognizant of the massive amounts of money and power at stake, this may well be tongue in cheek humor.

 

[PJABBER]

Damn you beat me to this thread. I was writing a Wall O' Text but the letter speaks for itself, doesn't it?

 

[DominionSeraph]

LOL. The old man threw a temper tantrum because everybody laughed in his face.

My play-by-play:

Old man: "I'm old and feeling irrelevant, so I'll use my position within this organization to force a circus, and I'll get political mileage from the anti's even if it does nothing." (because, like every other religious belief, all they're looking for is perceived wiggle room)

President: OMGWFTBBQ. U cereal?

Old man: You bet your ass I'm cereal!

President: LOL! You dumbass! Hey everyone! Look at dumbass!

Everyone: LOL!

President: LOL, hey everyone, old man here says he wants "scientific" discussion about Climategate. What say you?

- LOL!
- Wat
- "Scientific?"
- What's this guy smoking?
- Effin' tard.
- Keep your "Fundie" outta my physics.
- Jesus Christ!

Old man: "Waaaaah! That's not how you run a petition! I QUIT!"

 

[Fear No Evil]

And the character assassination begins...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL. The old man threw a temper tantrum because everybody laughed in his face.

My play-by-play:

Old man: "I'm old and feeling irrelevant, so I'll use my position within this organization to force a circus, and I'll get political mileage from the anti's even if it does nothing." (because, like every other religious belief, all they're looking for is perceived wiggle room)

President: OMGWFTBBQ. U cereal?

Old man: You bet your ass I'm cereal!

President: LOL! You dumbass! Hey everyone! Look at dumbass!

Everyone: LOL!

President: LOL, hey everyone, old man here says he wants "scientific" discussion about Climategate. What say you?

- LOL!
- Wat
- "Scientific?"
- What's this guy smoking?
- Effin' tard.
- Keep your "Fundie" outta my physics.
- Jesus Christ!

Old man: "Waaaaah! That's not how you run a petition! I QUIT!"

Congrats you've proven yourself to be dumber than dirt.
He brings up a number of valid points. The only hope you have is if you are a pre-teen who always look stupid when they post.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I really wish more people would look past the "Everyone believes in global warming without any unadulterated evidence, why don't you?" argument.

 

[McWatt]

-----------
Nonpolitical note:

To be clear, he isn't quitting a job. He's leaving APS, the main American organization of physicists.
-----------

I'd like to see a better source for this letter than a bunch of blogs and the Daily Telegraph, with its source given as a blog. I'm a bit surprised at some of the statements, but they could very well be authentic.

I never received the letter mentioned in his point #1, nor did anyone else in a quick poll I conducted among APS members I know this morning, but maybe we're not on a particular list.

I also have a habit of going to the more entertaining sessions of each APS meeting I attend, meaning I go see discussions of cold fusion, nuclear weapons, and the contentious corner of climate science. From what I've seen, talks critical of consensus climate conclusions are well represented and not at all discouraged.

I've received two emails in the past from a fundamentalist relative that were supposedly open letters from prominent scientists protesting the greater scientific community's treatment of a particular position (creationism). In both cases, the open letters turned out to be frauds. I'm assuming that's not the case here, but I wouldn't put too much time or energy into this particular canceled APS membership without confirming its authenticity.

edit: I feel stupid for posting without checking to see what Professor Lewis' area of expertise was. Thanks to all the uproar over this letter a quick web search doesn't make that clear and I'm not going to do a literature search for him. Someone else in here can go do that. For some reason I initially assumed he studied the climate, but now I realize that's a foolish assumption.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Mcwatt- That's a good point. A lot of what is cited never was. I haven't the time now but maybe someone will check it out.

 

[werepossum]

LOL. The old man threw a temper tantrum because everybody laughed in his face.

My play-by-play:

Old man: "I'm old and feeling irrelevant, so I'll use my position within this organization to force a circus, and I'll get political mileage from the anti's even if it does nothing." (because, like every other religious belief, all they're looking for is perceived wiggle room)

President: OMGWFTBBQ. U cereal?

Old man: You bet your ass I'm cereal!

President: LOL! You dumbass! Hey everyone! Look at dumbass!

Everyone: LOL!

President: LOL, hey everyone, old man here says he wants "scientific" discussion about Climategate. What say you?

- LOL!
- Wat
- "Scientific?"
- What's this guy smoking?
- Effin' tard.
- Keep your "Fundie" outta my physics.
- Jesus Christ!

Old man: "Waaaaah! That's not how you run a petition! I QUIT!"

Great Scott, it's a mini-Moonie!

Just FYI, this is not Algore, but an actual physicist.

 

[Jaskalas]

The power of man.

To turn science into nothing more than corrupt politics.

 

[DominionSeraph]

C
He brings up a number of valid points.

He's whining because he was counting on abusing the rigidity of the rules, but the system went organic on him.

The APS is physics, not climatology. And "climategate" wasn't even about climatology, so even climatologists can shitcan it.
Climategate just falls under sociology/psychology.

When I'm dealing with a YEC, am I going to crap out an entire textbook on radiometric dating when it's obvious he's just sifting through what I say for anything that will let him hold onto his belief, and completely ignoring the larger picture in which the cross-checks don't give room for his position? No. Not only is it a ton of work, he'd lose interest because he'd no longer be the center of attention. So I might blow him off, or I might play things one sided in the hopes that he'll hit the wall when it comes to questions before I have to break out the entire textbook of answers.
Is this, "Radiometric Dating-gate?" Nope. It has nothing to do with the science. How I choose to respond to a Fundie's mental makeup doesn't impact the underlying geology and physics one bit.

Intellectual honesty does not require that you approach everybody robotically. If somebody is a joke, they can be treated as a toy. If someone's being a bother, they can be treated as an annoyance.
The sad fact is, not everyone warrants being taken seriously. Your typical Norm strongly holds dozens of unfounded beliefs, but it's just not worth the effort to take each aside, trace out their tangles, and work them through it step-by-step. Even your typical genius has issues, but at least with them you can generally cram the basics of two thousand years of philosophy into an hour or two and then work from there.

There just aren't enough people in the upper echelons to cover the workload that would be required to bring everybody up to our level. We have to do triage.
The stupid and the emotionally damaged don't make the cut.

For some reason I initially assumed he studied the climate, but now I realize that's a foolish assumption.

Most definitely.
You don't find many creos in the life sciences or YEC's in paleontology.

My Google-fu shows he was in high energy physics in the '40's and solid state in the '50's.

Just FYI, this is not Algore, but an actual physicist.

FYI, I don't care. Physicist is not the same as philosopher. That at one time he was useful in his one narrow field does not render him immune to senility, or grant that he is competent in any other aspect of life.

Apparently you are unschooled in philosophy if you've been caught by such a surface feature of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

 

[PJABBER]

Even your typical genius has issues, but at least with them you can generally cram the basics of two thousand years of philosophy into an hour or two and then work from there.

There just aren't enough people in the upper echelons to cover the workload that would be required to bring everybody up to our level. We have to do triage.
The stupid and the emotionally damaged don't make the cut.

Übermensch, is that you?

 

[werepossum]

Übermensch, is that you?

And shouldn't you be in junior high right now?

 

[shira]

Oh, I see. A non-climatologist thinks there's a conspiracy.

Hey, I have a PhD in physics, too. My specialty is optical physics, as it applies to computer engineering, so I'm not tainted by the "literally trillions of dollars" of climate research money Lewis assures us is out there.

So naturally when I tell you that there's no climate conspiracy, you take that as gospel. Because anyone with a PhD in the physical sciences who isn't a climatologist knows what the truth is. That's your position, right?

"Literally trillions of dollars." Just think about that claim. And think about who is funding those trillions. The entire budget of the National Science Foundation is $7 BILLION a year. The entire budget of the Department of Energy is $10.5 BILLION a year.

Let's assume that 100% of the budgets of those two departments has been devoted to the "global warming scam" for every one of the last 20 years - with not a single penny used to fund any other area of science - and that those budgets have been the same over the entire time period. That would be about $350 billion, which leaves us only (at least) $1.65 TRILLION short of Lewis' "trillions."

Naturally, the balance is being funded by huge multinational corporations who think it will be enormously profitable for them to have to adapt their processes to a lower-carbon-footprint. And you can name even one of these huge multinational corporations who are funding the scam, can't you?

But Lewis obviously knows what he's talking about, because he doesn't know jack about climatology and he doesn't know jack about funding. But he's a PhD in physics and he's angry. So he must be right.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Übermensch, is that you?

I don't think you understand the concept.

Oh, I see. A non-climatologist thinks there's a conspiracy.

Hey, I have a PhD in physics, too. My specialty is optical physics, as it applies to computer engineering, so I'm not tainted by the "literally trillions of dollars" of climate research money Lewis assures us is out there.

So naturally when I tell you that there's no climate conspiracy, you take that as gospel. Because anyone with a PhD in the physical sciences who isn't a climatologist knows what the truth is. That's your position, right?

"Literally trillions of dollars." Just think about that claim. And think about who is funding those trillions. The entire budget of the National Science Foundation is $7 BILLION a year. The entire budget of the Department of Energy is $10.5 BILLION a year.

Let's assume that 100% of the budgets of those two departments has been devoted to the "global warming scam" for every one of the last 20 years - with not a single penny used to fund any other area of science - and that those budgets have been the same over the entire time period. That would be about $350 billion, which leaves us only (at least) $1.65 TRILLION short of Lewis' "trillions."

Naturally, the balance is being funded by huge multinational corporations who think it will be enormously profitable for them to have to adapt their processes to a lower-carbon-footprint. And you can name even one of these huge multinational corporations who are funding the scam, can't you?

But Lewis obviously knows what he's talking about, because he doesn't know jack about climatology and he doesn't know jack about funding. But he's a PhD in physics and he's angry. So he must be right.

You're casting pearls before swine there.

I can appreciate good pwnage, though.

 

[PJABBER]

Oh, I see. A non-climatologist thinks there's a conspiracy.

Hey, I have a PhD in physics, too. My specialty is optical physics, as it applies to computer engineering, so I'm not tainted by the "literally trillions of dollars" of climate research money Lewis assures us is out there.

So naturally when I tell you that there's no climate conspiracy, you take that as gospel. Because anyone with a PhD in the physical sciences who isn't a climatologist knows what the truth is. That's your position, right?

You've pontificated and nauseum on the topic here but you haven't any better background than any one else pontificating.

Wish you had been able to dip your hand in the funding stream? Mmmmm?

"Literally trillions of dollars." Just think about that claim. And think about who is funding those trillions. The entire budget of the National Science Foundation is $7 BILLION a year. The entire budget of the Department of Energy is $10.5 BILLION a year.

Perhaps you are misreading the good doctor's statement?

He does not appear to be claiming there were trillions in research, just that the entire house of cards has been at the cost, real and opportunity cost, of trillions? In this he is correct.

He also says that the Chairman's particular department at Princeton has benefited to the tune of millions and that could reasonably be the case. Right?

And you can name even one of these huge multinational corporations who are funding the scam, can't you?

Actually the involvement of certain large corporations who flog global warming is the topic of a thread I am considering, sort of a followup to one of the others that we have had in the past. Fascinating.

In any case, he is peeved that the APS is not going forward with a Topical Group to further explore the issues which he believes have brought great discredit to science. Sounds like a scientist seeking forthright discovery, not a guy with a political agenda. In this he is not alone.

But Lewis obviously knows what he's talking about, because he doesn't know jack about climatology and he doesn't know jack about funding. But he's a PhD in physics and he's angry. So he must be right.

Sounds like a description of the typical poster here, doesn't it? Yourself included?

:awe:

 

[PJABBER]

I don't think you understand the concept.

I am holier than thou.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I am holier than thou.

Holiness is a reaction to a perception, making it relative to an observer. You have zero holiness to me.

If you're new at this, keep trying. You might get the hang of it eventually.
If you've been at it for a while, I'd suggest you either quit or find someone who can hold your hand until you're at least able to stand on your own. EvCforum.net used to have a decent cadre of thinkers. You can try there.

 

[piasabird]

Global warming is really irrelevent. Can you really do anything about global warming. First prove your solution will bring a return on investment. If you cant prove what you want to do about global warming will actually help, then you are just a big blowhard.

Global warming is probably just caused by the sun anyway.

 

[monovillage]

The trillions of dollars numbers comes from expected profits of the carbon trading/cap'Ntrade expectations. Although since Copenhagen was such a bust and Pres. Obama didn't back the Cap'N trade Bill it may be a moot point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...Birley-defends-the-carbon-trading-system.html

For confirmation that Dr. Lewis wrote the letter he confirmed it to Lewis Page at The Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/

"Updated to Add

We've now heard back from Professor Lewis, who confirms that the letter is indeed his work and he stands by it."

To me the worst part of the letter is that the APS refuses to poll their membership and to have an open debate on the subject. What kind of science organization is it that refuses to allow debate amongst it's own membership?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Global warming is really irrelevent. Can you really do anything about global warming. First prove your solution will bring a return on investment. If you cant prove what you want to do about global warming will actually help, then you are just a big blowhard.

Global warming is probably just caused by the sun anyway.

Are you a climatologist?! Of course not. You don't understand the science. The sun causing global warming? Such a joke. What are you going to say next, gravity is responsible for us orbiting around the sun? MAN is responsible for the seasons not us rotating around the sun.

 

[PJABBER]

Holiness is a reaction to a perception, making it relative to an observer. You have zero holiness to me.

I rather think it is an absolute, but, no matter.

If you're new at this, keep trying. You might get the hang of it eventually.

I am an acolyte at your feet.

If you've been at it for a while, I'd suggest you either quit or find someone who can hold your hand until you're at least able to stand on your own.

I am regularly counseled here that wisdom is innate rather than learned, and that I am not worthy.

I don't know the meaning of the word "quit." I must have skipped class that day.

I am rather repulsed at the idea of having someone less able than I holding my hand if they do so in condescension. On the other hand, are you cute?

EvCforum.net used to have a decent cadre of thinkers. You can try there.

No, thank you, I am much more a doer than a thinker.

And I waste enough time here as it is. :awe:

 

[Ldir]

I am trollier than thou.

I waste enough time here as it is.

Two things we all agree with.

 

[PokerGuy]

Al Gore and his fellow high priests of global warming will not be pleased. The nonbeliever must be punished.