An important scientist resigns, partly due to the ClimateGate scandal

[WildHorse]

``

 

[shira]

Q.E.D. since Dr. Lewis is dissident from their status quo.


This thread is about the corruption of science by money. If you think it's vitally important to try to tear the man down instead of staying on topic, then leave. Go open your own thread about your views against Dr. Lewis. That's a different topic.

Please demonstrate that you're as smart as you've told us you are, by staying on topic.

Lewis is accepted by you and other climate-deniers as an authority on the alleged corruption in science. But what's the criterion for that acceptance? That he was a good scientist in the past? If that's the criterion, then a boatload of equally eminent scientists who disagree with him surely wins the argument. If not, then you're just arbitrarily cherry-picking scientists that agree with your pre-determined conclusions and arbitrarily rejecting a vastly greater number of scientists who disagree.

As I've pointed out in many, many threads: A small percentage of scientists in ANY field disagree with the consensus. So finding a few who support the non-consensus view proves exactly nothing.

If you can't see just now tendentious your strategy is, you're even more of a village idiot than PJABBER is.

 

[monovillage]

As always, it's follow the money.


"And if you wondered how much money is involved, here is Roman Column to explain:

The professor wrote: “…the money flood has become the raison d’être …” Let me present some figures below to see why “flood” was not an exaggeration (extract from http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf)

“The Money Connection

So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money:

- The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland.
- The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens.
- Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it."

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[sandorski]

As always, it's follow the money.


"And if you wondered how much money is involved, here is Roman Column to explain:

The professor wrote: “…the money flood has become the raison d’être …” Let me present some figures below to see why “flood” was not an exaggeration (extract from http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf)

“The Money Connection

So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money:

- The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland.
- The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens.
- Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it."

lol Fail. Important point here, even assuming those figures are correct, note that the $Billions are spent on Research. That's gathering Data, purchasing Equipment to gather Data, and many other Costs associated with Research. Of course that's more expensive than appearing on Fox spouting poorly thought out arguments against mountains of Evidence.

 

[monovillage]

lol Fail. Important point here, even assuming those figures are correct, note that the $Billions are spent on Research. That's gathering Data, purchasing Equipment to gather Data, and many other Costs associated with Research. Of course that's more expensive than appearing on Fox spouting poorly thought out arguments against mountains of Evidence.

I guess you missed this part:

"Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it."

lrn to read

 

[sandorski]

I guess you missed this part:

"Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it."

lrn to read

How's that particular $$ going to affect Climatology? I think you need to learn to think. If anything, Engineers and certain fields of Science well outside of Climatology would be the beneficiaries of those funds. So why would Climatologists be creating this vast conspiracy?

 

[LunarRay]

Used to be the first step in most scientific endeavors was Observation. I don't see how the issues Lewis raises changes that.
Either there are or are not issues regarding what us humans do that alters our climate to our detriment and that humans can do something about it.

In either event, we ought to do what is prudent regardless of what side explains the observations. IOW, we ought to default to the notion that we are in the process of destroying our future and if it turns up that is wrong we say... 'oops'. But we live if we are...

 

[GaiaHunter]

In either event, we ought to do what is prudent regardless of what side explains the observations. IOW, we ought to default to the notion that we are in the process of destroying our future and if it turns up that is wrong we say... 'oops'. But we live if we are...

The problem is if we default to the notion we are destroying the future and spend countless resources in fighting the wrong problem and the world is still warmer and now we are out of resources to fight the problems and take the opportunities a warmer world offer.

 

[werepossum]

The problem is if we default to the notion we are destroying the future and spend countless resources in fighting the wrong problem and the world is still warmer and now we are out of resources to fight the problems and take the opportunities a warmer world offer.

Excellent point. There are though undeniably problems caused by high CO2 concentrations, and while I remain unconvinced of the CAGW scenario I think it's prudent to look for ways to combat and/or sequester CO2 production.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[DominionSeraph]

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

Well, to continue this casual tangent for the sake of truth: It can't be absolute if there's value embedded in the term. Value requires someone to assign value. A thing has no value outside those who assign it value.

I am an acolyte at your feet.

I wouldn't want one, which is why I tried to pass you off to EvC.

Tongue-in-cheek doesn't even require good aim, yet you still missed.

*sigh*

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

Wisdom is learned. Experience is the teacher.

 

[senseamp]

I still have not seen any backing to OP's claim in title that this scientist is "important" wrt to climate science. He seems very tangentially related to the field.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[PJABBER]

Well, to continue this casual tangent for the sake of truth: It can't be absolute if there's value embedded in the term. Value requires someone to assign value. A thing has no value outside those who assign it value.

Holiness is a state of grace. It either exists or it does not. The determination is not made by mortals, but it may be perceived or it may be inferred by them with greater or lesser accuracy and always subject to the fallibility inherent in being of the mortal coil.

The value, if any, that mortals place on the state is irrelevant as its true worth can only be determined by divinity.

Are you familiar with the Gettier problem?

I wouldn't want one, which is why I tried to pass you off to EvC.

Nor shall you have one, for my offer was made in jest.

Tongue-in-cheek doesn't even require good aim, yet you still missed.

I am a better kisser than you give me credit for.

*sigh*

I love it when you breathe.

Wisdom is learned. Experience is the teacher.

I bet you say that to all the guys. How many take you up on it?

 

[senseamp]

for the 3rd time in this thread,

Dr. Lewis' letter is about corruption of science by &, not climate.

Why is he "important scientist?"

 

[GoPackGo]

Why is he "important scientist?"

Look at his credentials:


H. W. Lewis is a professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and has chaired numerous government risk-assessment committees on defense, nuclear power, and other matters.

from:

http://www.amazon.com/H.-W.-Lewis/e/..._athr_dp_pel_1

He is one of those guys that is smarter than the posters of anandtech forums put together.

 

[senseamp]

Look at his credentials:


H. W. Lewis is a professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and has chaired numerous government risk-assessment committees on defense, nuclear power, and other matters.

from:

http://www.amazon.com/H.-W.-Lewis/e/..._athr_dp_pel_1

He is one of those guys that is smarter than the posters of anandtech forums put together.

On defense, nuclear power, and other matters, maybe. Climate science, not so sure, unless we are talking about nuclear winter.

 

[sonnygdude]

On defense, nuclear power, and other matters, maybe. Climate science, not so sure, unless we are talking about nuclear winter.

One would assume that his scientific background and experience indicates that he is well versed in the scientific method, and can process data and information competently.

You know, it's funny that there are so many people who insist that climate research is so complex and you need specialized scientists to understand it, yet these specialists make so many simplifying assumptions. In all their highfalutin' komputer kodes to predict the earth's thermal response, what values do they give for emissivity and absorptivity of the earth's surface? They estimate it, and smear that value across the entire earth's surface as an average condition, because trying to deal with it with actual resolution is too complex. Does this have an effect on the results? You betcha. Why do you think there's constant activity going on to correlate/calibrate radiation budget estimates, and emissivity values based on satellite data? Climate scientists have a pretty good thing going for themselves...

 

[sandorski]

One would assume that his scientific background and experience indicates that he is well versed in the scientific method, and can process data and information competently.

You know, it's funny that there are so many people who insist that climate research is so complex and you need specialized scientists to understand it, yet these specialists make so many simplifying assumptions. In all their highfalutin' komputer kodes to predict the earth's thermal response, what values do they give for emissivity and absorptivity of the earth's surface? They estimate it, and smear that value across the entire earth's surface as an average condition, because trying to deal with it with actual resolution is too complex. Does this have an effect on the results? You betcha. Why do you think there's constant activity going on to correlate/calibrate radiation budget estimates, and emissivity values based on satellite data? Climate scientists have a pretty good thing going for themselves...

Fail

 

[sonnygdude]

Fail

Wow - what a compelling addition to the discussion. That's why we come here - sophisticated repartee :awe:

 

[sandorski]

Wow - what a compelling addition to the discussion. That's why we come here - sophisticated repartee :awe:

Srsly, you think you've got more figured out than Climatologists on the matter. "The Climate is always changing" is a far more compelling argument and just as much Fail.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[sandorski]

For the 4th time in this thread, the letter in the OP IS NOT about climate.

I posted an irrelevant picture above as my subtle commentary on the irrelevancy of all this off-the-track monkey chatter about climate. I'm a subtle kind of guy.

So please, senseamp, what are your thoughts about whether or not big money perverts science to such an extent that the scientists abandon their scientific stance of critical objectivity and doubt-until-proven, when the big $$$ are waved in their face, like the carrot on the donkey stick, theirs for the taking IF they "find" what's obviously expedient for the funders?

Let go the idea of CLIMATE and let's talk about MONEY corrupting the mental discipline of scientific objectivity/critical doubt until it's no longer properly "science," but rather gets perverted into a go fetch mission.

Go fetch me proof of whatever helps me increase my riches, you flunky scientist drone. And I, Mr. Company, will fund you until your dept. chair thinks you're w o n d e r f u l.

Then we'll broadcast it widely, while prominently highlighti9ng your famous university's name, which will make it a slam dunk over the public - man they'll all swallow that shit right down easy. Whatever our agenda, you'll sell that for us, and we'll line your pockets and boost your career.

So, senseamp, what about that? That's what Dr. Lewis' letter means to me.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/scott/santaBarbara.jpg

Corruption where Money is involved is inevitable, but so what? It takes Money to perform certain Science, more Money than some guy scraping by in his Garage can afford.

 

[sonnygdude]

Srsly, you think you've got more figured out than Climatologists on the matter. "The Climate is always changing" is a far more compelling argument and just as much Fail.

Wow - you're posting, but all I hear is "moooo..."

You should learn to think for yourself rather than blindly accept what people tell you :whiste: