Has Anyone else read this yet? Great letter- maybe the tide will begin turning now that we have such prominent people standing up. - Dear Curt: 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). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be? How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être 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. 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. So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example: 1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate 2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake. 3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work. 4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.< 5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council. 6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition. APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization? I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question. I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends. Hal
Has Anyone else read this yet?
Great letter- maybe the tide will begin turning now that we have such prominent people standing up.
-
Dear Curt:
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). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être 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.
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.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Thanks for posting. That's depressing.
31,487 American scientists including 9,029 with PhDs sign peitition against global wamring.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
It's nice to see that smart people are mad about this, too.
AGW always has a good rebuttal. A professor's opinion on conduct does not refute the evidence. From what i read, most of climategate was debunked.
government does not waste a good disaster. Just because goverment stands to benefit from it does not mean it is made up.
From what i read, most of climategate was debunked.
Try WHITE WASHED
What exactly are you reading?
You should give this a read - from Ross Mckitrick - one of the debunkers of the hockey Stick
Understaning the Climategate Inquiries
Let me know wat you think.
Wibee -
What do you think about the 30,000+ scientists in the above link I posted?
I've always wondered why we even need the disaster of climate change to convince people that pollution is bad...
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I understand. I am skeptical. But, AGW seem to have scientific evidence to combat accusations. They are very convincing to me.
Are you familiar with the arguments that contradict AGW? For example, Soon's argument about solar cycles, the fact that global warming is an inter-planetary phenomenon, or the fact that AGW confuses causality (carbon emissions caused by elevated temperatures). There are others, I'm sure.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Climate change and pollution are not the same things.
Pollution normally involves carbon particulate.
Climate change is merely about change in carbon dioxide composition from other factors, even though they come from the same sources as carbon particulate.
Pollution is not considered as major a problem, because carbon particulate is only dangerous to a certain level of composition and only dangerous according to where it happens. Climate change is considered much more seriously, because it has the possibility of uniform effect on any part of the world and not just one.
So yes, it is pretty reasonable for people to be more worried by what is asserted about climate change than what is asserted about pollution.
Wibee:I understand. I am skeptical. But, AGW seem to have scientific evidence to combat accusations. They are very convincing to me.
What about the evidence that global temperatures have fallen over at least the past 10 years?
Also, I hope you're not counting things like Mann's "hockey-stick" graph as evidence.
Prateek Sanjay:So yes, it is pretty reasonable for people to be more worried by what is asserted about climate change than what is asserted about pollution.
Remember that the world is a very big place. Also, there's the question of how quickly the climate can/does change.
On a related note, this source suggests that the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere was almost three times higher than today. Life apparently did just fine under such conditions -- after all, here we are.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Andy: 31,487 American scientists including 9,029 with PhDs sign peitition against global wamring. http://www.petitionproject.org/
We should be careful to note that just because 31,487 scientists, including 9029 with PhDs sign a petition, it does not show that global warming is false or that 31,487 climate scientists believe it to be false. Not all of the signatures are from climate scientists. In fact, most probably aren't. Any scientist who has given even a cursory look at the literature of the global warming skeptics could sign that list, and thus he could be made to look like an expert. What I'm saying is, let's be careful in defining "scientist." I'd much rather listen to a climate scientist on the issue of global warming than I would a geologist.
I am just saying that AGW seem to adequately defend their positions. I seen many things like the solar cycle position seem to be refuted. Whether by ice core samples or satellite, or tree rings.
Then there is the case that a lot of skeptics in one way or another have been connected to oil or coal. Which is not necessarily bad imho.
Wow-it is amazing to see on a website that purports to be anit-state that so many people posting buy into the THE LARGEST state intervention into our lives in a long time.
I'll rebut a few points.
As someone else already pointed out, CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food. Essential to all live on this planet. Thearth is at geologically low levels of CO2.
How disastrous has climate "Change" been then? I thought it was called global warming??? Ah but as Phil Jones pointed out - "there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995"
But of course the climate is always "Changing" so iguess we can continue to blame humans as the reason for the seasons.
Please post something that you find convincing. Many people, my cousin included think the old testament is a convincing story of creation.
Really? I assert that a a giant sea serpent will rise from the depths of the Atlantic Ocean and destroy New York - Are you worried about that now?
Here is another one, I assert that DDT will kill all the birds in North america - did that happen? Worried about it?
I assert that we will enter another ice age within the next 1000 years - that one you should be worried about, as it is shown by multiple lines of evidence that we are due for one.
I would trust a geologist over a climte scientist any day - Paleo-climate geologists have a real grasp on the climate history of this planet, and most of them state very clearly that AGW is nonsense.
Climate science these days seems to be concerned mostly with building General Circulation Models and attempting to recreate the last 150 years inside their virtual worlds.
When they try to apply what they have learned about the virtual earth in their computers to the real world, their predictions fail miserably - for the last 20 years in fact. Why should we trust their predicitons of the future?
Speaking of scientists - how about the "2500 scientists agree statements" of Al Gore? How many climatologists worked on the IPCC Monstrosity?
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
And how about the 100% peer reviewed claim?
I worked on the Citizen Audit of the IPCC - and tracked down the Snowmobilers Manufacturing Association Reference.
Check it out, you might be surprised.
Cheers.
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.
Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.
Financial Post LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.
Posted in: Environment, Full Comment Tags: climate change, Climate Research Unit, Climategate, Climatic Research Unit, CRU, East Anglia University, global warming, global warming scandal, IPCC, Lawrence Solomon, Mike Hulme, UN IPCC
To leave a comment, you need to Sign Up.
Forgot Password?
To comment, please login.
E-mail
Password
Bio
Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.
This profile is private.
This profile is only shared with friends.
This profile is under review.
We were unable to request friendship with this user.
We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?
Your friendship request has been sent to this user.
We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.
We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?
You are no longer friends with this user.
We were unable to ignore this user.
We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?
This user is now ignored.
We were unable to stop ignoring this user.
We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?
This user is no longer ignored.
We encountered a problem recommending this user.
pluck_user_recommend_permission
You have recommended this user.
pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err
What Do You Think?
To leave a comment, you need to sign up.
Forgot Password? To comment, please login.
42 comments
Sort:
8:56 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Save Canada Now. Show DetailsHide Details
Well Warmers, we await your latest spin on this one. So, what is it? Hulme has been taken over by an alien consciousness? He actually isn't important in the AGW camp? His paper is a fake planted by "deniers"? Anyone still believing in the myth of anthropogenic global warming has gone from merely gullible to just plain pitifully stupid.
9:12 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore GrungyOldVan. Show DetailsHide Details
Thank humans for putting this Globull dhimmi-jizya warming garbage off its rails...
9:15 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Elizabeth R.. Show DetailsHide Details
I always assumed that the 2,500 scientists including anyone with a science background whether they were chiropractors or fruit fly biologists! What people don't get is the fact Climate Science is not a science. It is statistics. They collect raw data, dump it into a computer and then forecast what will happen ten, twenty, thirty years down the road. It is ingenious when you think about it. Look! I put all these numbers in my little black box and push a button - it shows doom! Very much like crystal ball reading and it was very convenient to dupe the masses who were not computer literate.
9:26 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.
This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.
9:38 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Fred Z. Show DetailsHide Details
I think the NP is intentionally letting in some spam.
10:01 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Sassylassie. Show DetailsHide Details
Without the internet and a few truthful journalists we'd of lost this battle of wills, make no mistake without the internet the global socialists/leftards would of gotten away with this fake hoax for profit. We the people would of paid for their wealth redistribution scam until they financially ruined advanced democratic societies.
10:08 AM on June 13, 2010
10:37 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Maximum Cat. Show DetailsHide Details
It was no secret ever that of the "2500 scientists" who accepted the Global Warming theory, very few were actually scientists with any expertise in climatology.
10:42 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore sometown. Show DetailsHide Details
What, another inconvenient truth about the IPCC? It's beginning to seem that, the IPCC could be another designation for the concept, "man made disaster."
11:48 AM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Mel from Calgary. Show DetailsHide Details
Does this mean we don't have to conserve energy?
12:10 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore ZeeBC. Show DetailsHide Details
The liars were able to get away with the scam because they were able to tie the public's desire to curb pollution and clean the water and air with natural climate changes. The leftwing media were sucked in, pushed it for all they were worth and many charlatans made millions as duped governments joined the bandwagon. The day of reckoning will come some day. Can the IPCC fakers all fit into Gitmo?
12:54 PM on June 13, 2010
There is an oil spill everyday at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, where 20-25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=76955 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000127082228.htm ===== Just wanted to head off the "OH MY GOD, THE BP SPILL IS THE END OF THE OIL WORLD!!!"
2:36 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore PBL41. Show DetailsHide Details
If you want to see raw bitumen dripping into a waterway just take a hike along some of the small tributaries running into the North Saskatchewan around Fort MacMurray, and as the creeks erode the banks more and more becomes exposed.
2:48 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore MrJohnQPublic. Show DetailsHide Details
The amazing thing is that the general public could smell the stink of the IPCC all the time. They knew that they were being sold a "bill of goods" even with the world's politicians and media piling on the rhetoric. The polls are showing worldwide that the belief in AGW and the IPCC are sinking like a stone. As the saying goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
3:46 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Rhino Party Whip. Show DetailsHide Details
When will the writers of NP and FP be recognized as global leaders in heading off this disaster?
3:56 PM on June 13, 2010
4:37 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore D_Inc. Show DetailsHide Details
Are you kidding me? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Arctic+Ocean+retreating+year+record+pace/3149286/story.html I can't saywho to point fingers at (man or mother nature). But it can't be denied: A) There is evidence that the climate and weather on Earth are changing, drastically, and at an accelerated rate. B) These changes have a negative effect on our world today, and will have a more drastic effect in the near future. In either case, there are lots of steps being made to correctly educate the public, but what can we expect when many people are not versed on the issues and when we look to those to inform us, we get several different stories. Whether it can be stopped or not, many changes being made have positive impacts on our environment short/long-term. As for whether these drastic changes can be stopped, what else do you expect a public to do?
4:59 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore hoppy96. Show DetailsHide Details
How can anyone be surprised? The IPCC is, after all, a child of the UN. Has there ever been anything believable issued from the UN? Now even the insiders are crying uncle.
7:27 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore anonymous. Show DetailsHide Details
Very nice, easy to follow
8:54 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore RationalPost. Show DetailsHide Details
The author of this article, if he read the Hulme-Mahoney paper, is being disingenuous. Hulme does NOT argue that there was no consensus, he DOES argue that world experts found overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change. Yes, statistics are a crucial foundation of the argument propounded by the IPCC. Sort of like the evidence that smoking cigarettes is a major cause of lung cancer. That argument goes something like this. There is a strong correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. We have overwhelming evidence that components of cigarette smoke are carcinogens. This patient has a history of cigarette smoking. The cancer affecting this patient is characteristic of and consistent with that associated with smoking cigarettes. We feel confident that this patient's cancer can be attributed to cigarette smoking. There is an overwhelming (thousands of oncologists) consensus among the medical community that this patient's cancer is attributable to smoking cigarettes. This is a scientific argument. It isn't a mathematical proof, it is a statistical proof. I suggest the following. Survey the 2500 scientists associated with the IPCC report and ask them - agree/disagree - human activities are having a significant influence on the climate. I'll bet that overwhelmingly, the result will be that the surveyed scientists agree that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate. My definition of overwhelming? At least 80%, but I actually expect the number to be over 90%.
9:43 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore CANGS2. Show DetailsHide Details
The Hulme and Mahony paper makes it clear that the IPCC house of cards has been constructed by a clique of academics who have been jostling for position to have their observations, computer simulations and opinions about the Earth's climate heard. The authors describe the Club of IPCC as a place where only the peer-reviewed output of the anointed counts. If only the team could communicate its views to the unwashed public and politicians then its Good Book would be unchallenged. Too bad the real world doesn't work as modeled. Why should anyone pay more attention to a stack of obscure scientific papers just because it has a UN IPCC stamp of approval on it? Anyone who has had experience with today's peer review process, a convenient publically-funded editing service for commercial journals like Nature, knows about the shortcomings and scope for abuse. Hulme's Club of IPCC has been duped by the One World Government merry band of left-leaning schemers within the bowels of the UNEP. Fortunately President Obama's bulldozing of the Copenhagen conference's stage-managed negotiations pretty much trashed the idea that rich nations owe something to the poor and that science trumps political expediency. The bottom line question is: Who cares what the Club of IPCC and its political manipulators think about climate change knowledge and its social science forensic inspectors? If legitimate climate risk requires insurance, then buy a policy. It shouldn’t require two decades of IPCC Brownian motion to get a fee quotation. Scrap the IPCC and its academic baggage. Contract with a major engineering firm to design a process control system for the Earth and provide the capital and operating cost estimates without the involvement of 760 United Nations Plaza, New York. Then we'll have something on which to base a real world decision.
9:54 PM on June 13, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore BaffinBoy. Show DetailsHide Details
Poll the scientists and see what they say. In any case the world moves on. In a very recent report a team led by Ohio State University has examined data from over 300 past and ongoing studies of historical Arctic ice amounts. Quoting from a piece entitled: "Arctic Ice At Low Point Compared To Recent Geologic History". "Less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history." "The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the early 20th century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years." http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sedcore.htm For a graph showing very clearly the recent dramatic reduction in Arctic ice volume the reader is referred to, for example http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php Much of the data used to construct this plot came from recently declassified US Navy documents (Sonar measurements from US Navy nuclear submarine patrols). The data was apparently declassified because (1) the possibility of an old style cold war appears now to be less likely and also (2) due to the fact that the Arctic is, well, not as cold as it used to be. Every northern hemisphere military - including the Canadian military - is very keenly aware of the rapidly collapsing Arctic ice sheets.
2:09 AM on June 14, 2010
If I get a 6 figure government grant I will upgrade my IBM clone to DOS 6.2. Then I will feed in the raw data. After some number crunching I will produce the results for 2014. The earth has cooled 1 degree Fahrenheit. Oops not the info they wanted. Must be that volcano in Iceland spewing tiny reflectors into the troposphere. No sweat, tinker with the raw data input. Thats the ticket, new results, new government grant, new car new house. Easy money. Who knew?
2:53 AM on June 14, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore CanuckDriver. Show DetailsHide Details
Finally, the stone wall is starting to show cracks! These liars are starting to come clean, little by little. First it was Phil Jones admitting that "there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years" on BBC-TV. Now we have his colleague at East Anglia admitting that the IPCC consensus was phony. Of course, if you read the Climategate e-mails and associated documents, you already knew that -- and a whole lot more! Time to put AGW to bed as C.R.A.P. and toss the perps in jail.
7:16 AM on June 14, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore amallya. Show DetailsHide Details
Well. I never really cared what "scientists" thought about AGW. Climate science is mostly a game. Because it involves PROBABILITY. Did nobody tell you that ? Oh i'm sorry, i guess you believe anything, anybody tells you, without thinking critically. Climate "science" involves a lot of statistical probabilities. I let common sense, and the fact that I have to work hard for my money, guide me in my decisions. Also, thank your stars that Stephen Harper is PM, if Dion had won him and his army of socialist r3t@rds would have ruined this country by taxing an element on the periodic table. Imagine Dion during the financial crisis of 08.... How about a tax on air? Humans are hogging too much of the oxygen that is required for bunnies, and polar bears.
Report Abuse
We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.
Email This
We're sorry, but the comment you are sending has been removed from the site.
We're sorry. We were unable to send the comment at this time.
Please specify a recipient.
You can only send messages to 5 addresses at a time.
The address "" is not valid.
Please specify a subject.
Score vote upvotes up vote downvotes down
News
Stock Quote
Powered by Interactive Data Managed Solutions
About the Full Comment.
Editor: Kelly McParland (e-mail)
A note on reader comments: Your comments are welcomed. We accept new comments for 24 hours after the initial posting of most entries.
With the international launch of Apple’s iPad, the National Post is excited to debut the next stage of evolution for our products: Full Comment for iPad.
This version of Full Comment is Web-based and complete: Every piece of commentary you see on Full Comment through your browser or RSS reader, you will see on the iPad version.
Learn more: http://natpo.st/98SVAm
Our editorial board discusses the political and social issues that have them buzzing.
Get it free on our dedicated page
Subscribe to this podcast via iTunes
See a full archive from our award-winning cartoonist Gary Clement
Don Martin Tasha Kheiriddin Conrad Black Jonathan Kay Chris Selley Robert Fulford Lorne Gunter David Frum Kelly McParland Barbara Kay George Jonas John Ivison Rex Murphy
Read more commentary on Canadian and global business, politics and the fight against junk science on our FP Comment blog including columns from Terence Corcoran, Lawrence Solomon, Peter Foster, William Watson and guest columns from the leading names in economics, business and politics.
Powered by WordPress.com VIP