It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top scientist resigns from post - admits Global Warming is a scam

page: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Didn't that guy die from dementia or alzheimer's?




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm not debating the significance of APS one way or the other. I'm not even saying that Hal Lewis wasn't a reputable scientist and I'm certainly not saying that he was a paid shill. What I am saying is that Hal Lewis was not a climate scientist. APS has over 50,000 members and I'm sure there are quite of those physicists who are actually working in climate science, he doesn't appear to have been one of them.


What I find even more interesting are the ones that are discounting this scientists motive as monetary in basis...he was 87 when he resigned....not exactly a time to care about money, but it is a time when someone would come clean about something they felt was wrong.


Why couldn't it just be that he had strong opinions that were wrong? You're basically saying that it's easier to believe that everyone else is a corrupt, paid liar than to believe that this man could be wrong. What makes him more credible than everyone else aside from the fact that you've ruled out money as a motive?

Curtis G. Callan, Jr is 73. So he was 68 when this came out. He's a theoretical partical physicist and a professor at Princeton. If you look at his recent publications, he's not researching climate science either. His particular focus is "theoretical problems in cellular biology."

Interestingly, they both served as chairman of JASON defense advisory group; Hal Lewis from 1966 to 1973 and Curtis Callan (member since 1968) was chairman from 1990 to 1995.

Why is one more credible than the other?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Gothmog

Is this guy one of the 'true' scientist you were telling me about?

What was that list again??


More than one. Like I said , jumping ship like rats leaving. Again , true scientists know the lowdown and skinny on the topic of global warming.
It is happening now , just like it has happened time and time again over the earth's history. The only science deniers are the ones that deny that fact.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: mc_squared

Damn op was right, some serious mental gymnastics here.


Talk about mental gymnastics... read the responses on the thread link from mc_squared..it seems some people are
obsessed with Global warming..lol

Peace
edit on 24-9-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm not debating the significance of APS one way or the other. I'm not even saying that Hal Lewis wasn't a reputable scientist and I'm certainly not saying that he was a paid shill. What I am saying is that Hal Lewis was not a climate scientist. APS has over 50,000 members and I'm sure there are quite of those physicists who are actually working in climate science, he doesn't appear to have been one of them.


What I find even more interesting are the ones that are discounting this scientists motive as monetary in basis...he was 87 when he resigned....not exactly a time to care about money, but it is a time when someone would come clean about something they felt was wrong.


Why couldn't it just be that he had strong opinions that were wrong? You're basically saying that it's easier to believe that everyone else is a corrupt, paid liar than to believe that this man could be wrong. What makes him more credible than everyone else aside from the fact that you've ruled out money as a motive?

Curtis G. Callan, Jr is 73. So he was 68 when this came out. He's a theoretical partical physicist and a professor at Princeton. If you look at his recent publications, he's not researching climate science either. His particular focus is "theoretical problems in cellular biology."

Interestingly, they both served as chairman of JASON defense advisory group; Hal Lewis from 1966 to 1973 and Curtis Callan (member since 1968) was chairman from 1990 to 1995.

Why is one more credible than the other?


I wouldn't say any one of them is more credible than the other. I would say that the APS releasing a statement on a single member out of 50,000 is quite the statement about his stature in the organization. Their changing policies based on things he claimed after his statement give me reason to doubt the sincerity of the APS as an organization as a whole.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I always love the hair-brained accusation that scientists are raking in big bucks "supporting" climate change when they could all quit their jobs and retire on the money a company like Exxon could pay for them to cover-up climate change. Every time some scientist comes out claiming its a hoax I have to wonder what kind of money the energy companies shelled out to them, I guarantee its way higher than what a scientist actually makes.

It's like someone saying, "all those scientists who say smoking is bad for you are just working together with doctors to diagnose you with problems you don't have to make MONEY!" when the real money for scientists with no ethics was to work for the tobacco industry creating propaganda disguised as science.

It really baffles me the opposition to the obvious, that seven billion humans creating mass pollution on a grand scale is bad for the planet and we should find a way to pollute less. Oh the conspiracy! How dare we want to treat the Earth with more respect! What a total scam Climate Science is, with their constant profit from grant money that gets spent on new research.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
This doesn't surprise me. I've spoken to many scientists, including meteorologists, who do not believe in man made climate change but they still go along with it and support, it because they believe it is in the best interest of man kind to reduce waste, use cleaner energy, and just reduce overall pollution.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


wouldn't say any one of them is more credible than the other. I would say that the APS releasing a statement on a single member out of 50,000 is quite the statement about his stature in the organization. Their changing policies based on things he claimed after his statement give me reason to doubt the sincerity of the APS as an organization as a whole.


What came first, the APS statement or the release of the letter in the media? I'd say that releasing the letter to the media pretty much guaranteed a response. That's not say that Hal Lewis wasn't a well regarded scientist of considerable stature but so was the man he wrote the letter to and so are lots of physicists at the APS.

I think I missed something, what policies did they change?

Interestingly and since it's Old News Day today, there's this from the NY Times:


Almost 20 years ago, Harold Lewis, a respected physicist who had advised the government and the Pentagon on matters ranging from nuclear winter to missile defense, included his assessment of climate change from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in a book on technological risk:

All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business. [Read more.]

A couple of pages later, he laid out the implications of warming and the need for “global cooperation and sacrifice now, to avert something far in the future.” He noted that this was unlikely, given human nature, but said, “one can only hope.”


So was 1982 Hal Lewis right or was 2010 Hal Lewis?
edit on 2015-9-24 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Who are they then? No one denies it is a natural thing to warm up, just not at the rate we are.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe


wouldn't say any one of them is more credible than the other. I would say that the APS releasing a statement on a single member out of 50,000 is quite the statement about his stature in the organization. Their changing policies based on things he claimed after his statement give me reason to doubt the sincerity of the APS as an organization as a whole.


What came first, the APS statement or the release of the letter in the media? I'd say that releasing the letter to the media pretty much guaranteed a response. That's not say that Hal Lewis wasn't a well regarded scientist of considerable stature but so was the man he wrote the letter to and so are lots of physicists at the APS.

I think I missed something, what policies did they change?

Interestingly and since it's Old News Day today, there's this from the NY Times:


Almost 20 years ago, Harold Lewis, a respected physicist who had advised the government and the Pentagon on matters ranging from nuclear winter to missile defense, included his assessment of climate change from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in a book on technological risk:

All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business. [Read more.]

A couple of pages later, he laid out the implications of warming and the need for “global cooperation and sacrifice now, to avert something far in the future.” He noted that this was unlikely, given human nature, but said, “one can only hope.”


So was 1982 Hal Lewis right or was 2010 Hal Lewis?


The initial statement came first. The changes came after. If you look at the foot notes with the ** at the bottom it has a link to the changes made after his statement.

ETA: Hal, apparently was torn between what he thought and what he was getting paid to say. I have no idea which was right, but people tend to come clean when they are old and about to pass.

I would take his final word over his earlier word based on the number of years in between.
edit on 9/24/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Gothmog

Is this guy one of the 'true' scientist you were telling me about?

What was that list again??


More than one. Like I said , jumping ship like rats leaving. Again , true scientists know the lowdown and skinny on the topic of global warming.
It is happening now , just like it has happened time and time again over the earth's history. The only science deniers are the ones that deny that fact.


This is what you told me.

Geologists , Archaeologists , Astronomers , even biologists that can tell the climate and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere all agree that this type of change has been around for millions of years.

When I asked you before who the true scientists were. Strange how this guy doesn't fall into that but yet you call him a 'true' scientist....
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: theantediluvian
But you people have a hard time believing that Scientists arent bought off to push an agenda?


No, actually we don't. Most of us global warming "believers" have posted numerous threads on here, not just speculating that scientists are bought and paid for, but actually proving it. There's only one problem - all these scientists turn out to be global warming skeptics.

I've posted numerous threads on this:

Gov't Climate Researcher Exposed for Hiding Funds...So Breitbart Jumps to His Rescue?

Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

Here's 100% Proof That FOX News Are Straight Up Lying, Corporate Shills.

Another Day, Another Climate Skeptic Exposed As Fossil Fuel Industry Stooge

Now, do you think ALL scientists are bought and paid for? Me, personally, I believe a small percentage are...oh about 3% actually. That leaves about 97% with integrity. See a pattern yet?

What's amazing though is how much those 3% have swindled people by playing the poor little underdog/victim role here. They make you really just wanna root for them standing up to the big bad scientific establishment don't they? Maybe it's not surprising though because that's exactly what they do for a living - PR science - they've been doing it for a long time.

If you read the full debunking I posted before, it ultimately links you to Hal Lewis' co-author Fred Singer. I can show you private memos that were released by the Tobacco Master Settlement agreement detailing how Fred Singer was bought by the Tobacco industry to "question" the health hazards of smoking. After that money dried up he suddenly became a famous "esteemed" global warming skeptic.

If you look at the facts on this issue, not some trivial speculation that appeals to your political bias - and if you do that with any critical thinking or honesty whatsoever, it becomes very clear who's actually doing all the mental gymnastics here.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   


From the “department of global roasting” and the UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, where great ideas like this one are formed at Halloween parties, (yes really, see PR) comes this claim:

UAF model used to estimate Antarctic ice sheet melting

To see how burning up the Earth’s available fossil fuels might affect the Antarctic ice sheet, scientists turned to a computer program developed at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute. The ice would disappear, they found, and that conclusion is making headlines across the world.


Talk About "Top" Scientists !!




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm not even saying that Hal Lewis wasn't a reputable scientist and I'm certainly not saying that he was a paid shill.


I've done a fair bit of research on the guy and I'm not sure he explicitly was either. There's no doubt he fell in with that crowd though, and they exploited the crap out of him.

Hal Lewis' partner in crime, Fred Singer:



Letter from PR Firm APCO Associates hired by Philip Morris


It's so easy to do "mental gymnastics" when you have all these exposed memo springboards and plain factual pommelhorses to work with.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Linky




It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.


theres more in his letter that he talks about , some very interesting insights there

Let the calling me a science denier begin!


OK...First Off ..You do realize that this professor died 4 years ago?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Linky




It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.


theres more in his letter that he talks about , some very interesting insights there

Let the calling me a science denier begin!


OK...First Off ..You do realize that this professor died 4 years ago?

Exactly (I'm guilty of assuming this thread was new):
en.wikipedia.org - Harold Lewis...

After looking over things, he reads as conservative. He had the attiude most of us worry about things which're not worth worrying about. This is the subject of his book Technological Risk (1990 - link).

He joined a UK think tank in 2010 named Global Warming Policy Foundation:
(Source)

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] The Independent describes the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".

edit on 9/24/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).


Now it ALL makes sense.

You've heard of the Military Industrial Complex.

You've heard of the Prison Industrial Complex.

Some people dismiss the Welfare Industrial Complex.

And we now have the Climate Industrial Complex.

All the pieces fit together now.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cleverhans
This doesn't surprise me. I've spoken to many scientists, including meteorologists, who do not believe in man made climate change but they still go along with it and support, it because they believe it is in the best interest of man kind to reduce waste, use cleaner energy, and just reduce overall pollution.


Climatology is as much a science as psychology is.

Cargo Cult Science


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 UFOs, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world.



But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up--in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress-- lots of theory, but no progress--in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.

Richard Feynman

edit on 24-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

OK...First Off ..You do realize that this professor died 4 years ago?


Albert Einstein died 60 years ago.





edit on Sep-24-2015 by xuenchen because: ((-0-))389



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."

-Albert Einstein
edit on 24-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join