Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

A global govt has to start it's funding mechanisms somewhere, somehow.....

What Global Warming does, is see an increase in Global Warming. Which means the globe as a whole is warming. Not because your city was cold and that doesn't mean anything. Global warming is melting the Arctic right now at an incredible rate. The SST Anomalies in the Bering Sea are over 5 degrees Celcius above normal. What this melting could be doing is adding too much fresh water into the Atlantic current which could slow it down, leading to a possible Ice-Age. Or the warming Arctic actually is disrupting Atmospheric conditions leading to a weaker Jetstream. Which means, the Polar Vortex sliding more south than usual, and causing a major Ridge of High Pressure on the West Coast. The debate now is, if this is natural or man made. I will leave my opinion to myself.



[link to www.tropicaltidbits.com]

Last Edited by Bomb Cyclone on 10/03/2015 09:41 PM

LOl at title - no really?? ahahah

they fail AGAIN

You people that claim it's a Hoax offer no credible evidence.

The re-distribution of wealth is going to the top 1% ... it's a Trickle Up Effect ... my parents came from nothing and worked their tails off to make it possible for us to get an education so we wouldn't have to work as hard as they did, but instead we're stuck with student loans we'll never be able to pay off, and our own kids can't go to college. I've been downsized, redefined, worked more for less pay, reinvented myself and fought against my degree as a liability for being "over educated." I see what this anthropogenic Climate Change is: the top 1% is heavily invested in China and India, the countries excused from the Kyoto Agreement. Everybody knows it's cheaper to build a new house with the latest buzzers and bells than it is to build it with old technology and replace it later, but there's a phony justification of granting leeway to the developing countries to "allow them to catch up" before requiring them to switch from fossil fuels to "clean" energy. If that "clean" energy were available as claimed, the West would be all over giving loans to set up in China and India with solar, wind, and water power, and then they would be ahead of us in production, right? No. It's, "Those poor people can't afford to start with clean energy, so we'll let them use coal because it's soooo much cheaper. They can tear down the coal plants and switch to windmills after they've created some wealth." And what that really means is, "We get super cheap labor and production costs out of the deal, and since we're heavily invested there, and make our profits from there, we don't have to be concerned about watching our own country turn into a 3rd world nation. Let the poor fight amongst themselves."

Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans. Should we cap-and-tax them?

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?) Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity.

[link to www.iloveco2.com]

This is such an amazing little bit of info!!!!!!!!!

ike warned the people about military industry and its malevolent influence. the scientist was vague but he undoubtedl was addressing a threat from the militaty against independent science and scientists

A peer group of independent, private sector scientists has organized the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). IN 2013, the NIPCC issued its own comprehensive, voluminous report on the science of climate change, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, published by the Heartland Institute.

If you are a true believer in anthropogenic, catastrophic, global warming, you don’t know what you are talking about unless you also have at least looked through the hundreds of pages of calm, dispassionate science in Climate Change Reconsidered II, which also reviews the peer-reviewed literature on climate change. Go ahead, I dare you. What are you afraid of?

[link to www.forbes.com]

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute.

[link to www.nipccreport.org]

Like the IPCC’s reports, NIPCC’s reports cite
thousands of articles appearing in peer-reviewed science
journals relevant to the subject of human-induced climate
change. For CCR-II: Physical Science, NIPCC presents
its findings in seven chapters:
Global Climate Models
Forcings and Feedbacks
Solar Forcing of Climate
Observations: Temperature Records
Observations: The Cryosphere
Observations: The Hydrosphere and Oceans
Observations: Extreme Weather

[link to www.nipccreport.org]

97% of climate scientists...96% of climate scientists agree.

OP, ur link points to another link
[link to wattsupwiththat.com]
that says "Oops! That page can’t be found."

Where is the original letter ?

The causes of historic global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years.

[link to www.nipccreport.org]

Try this one, it works
[link to my.telegraph.co.uk]

No, that's the copy/paste page that points to a non existing 'page can’t be found' page..
I hope you are not trying to make me believe he published his resignation in telegraph.co.uk .. right ?

The link works, probably blocked where you are. It was an open letter to the public - I found it at the link.

Forbes???




All credibility lost. Not you, but the content.

Last Edited by Bomb Cyclone on 10/09/2015 02:15 PM

Forbes only reported on the group. Consider:

moron,

what about he 99% failed predictions models

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
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
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

[link to www.ncdc.noaa.gov (secure)]

My view is the warming ocean areas are a result of over 75,000 active undersea volcanoes. Not the result of man at all.

[link to volcano.oregonstate.edu]

I beg to differ. Do you understand how large the Pacific Ocean is to be affected by that?

Indeed I do and believe 75,000 heat vol/vents cause more temp variance then gases in the air.

Toward the end of the 13th century the Anasazi simply disengaged and wandered off from the American Southwest.

No one is willing to say that it was the first real collapse of a major civilization because of climate change, but that's the likely truth of it. Yet no coal, no China, no cars, and no freon involved.

[link to www.smithsonianmag.com]

A Former Climate Modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office Says Mathematics Used by UN Overstates Global Warming by Ten-Fold

Dr. David Evans of the Australian Greenhouse Office says the mathematical model used by the United Nations is simply wrong. The underlying physics of the model is correct, but it has been applied incorrectly. Dr. Evans states that the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is far lower, and at best, accounts for only 20% of any claimed warming effect. He states that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times. He makes it clear that “the political obstacles are massive” to change this movement.

Indeed, this is all about the power to tax as states will use this bogus data to tax people now on each mile that they drive. It is like electric cigarettes. Governments claimed that they were taxing cigarettes to discourage their use rather than outlawing them. Now that tax revenues have decline, many states are moving to tax electronic cigarettes. Just follow the money. Those in government can never keep their hands out of your pocket.

[link to www.ntnews.com.au]