Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harold Lewis Resigns - Calls Global Warming a Scam
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 16 of 22 (586785)
10-14-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
10-14-2010 7:11 PM


What is there in that post to investigate?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-14-2010 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 17 of 22 (586787)
10-14-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
10-14-2010 7:11 PM


A highly qualified and respected scientist makes the point that there is an agenda in play, and a lack of scientific objectivity in the institution that is charged with researching the issue.
He may be respected, I dunno, I never heard of him before, but unless his research involve climate change then he's not "highly qualified." Just sayin'.
-
This highly respected scientist is called a fool, a denialist. a good scientist gone bad, an aggrieved child and that his is not knowledgeable and is going senile.
Huh? What? Wait a minute! This "highly respected" scientist has just called the many, many other highly respected and very much more qualified scientists fools and crooks and people who are only in it for the money.
It could be that he is simply wrong about this, but I think that when someone is so publicly and spectacularly wrong then they are going to attract a bit of name calling.

You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. -- Abbie Hoffman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-14-2010 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 18 of 22 (586788)
10-14-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
10-14-2010 7:11 PM


A highly qualified and respected scientist makes the point that there is an agenda in play, and a lack of scientific objectivity in the institution that is charged with researching the issue.
Well, sure. That's the accusation he's making.
What's the proof he presents? None at all. he just says "ClimateGate" like it settles the issue.
There doesn't seem to be any thought given that just maybe the charges he has made should at least be investigated.
But they were investigated. He even admits they were investigated. The individuals involved in "ClimateGate" were investigated eight times, with not a single investigation lending any credence whatsoever to the accusations.
The individual who violated the privacy of scientists, as well as the law, by hacking into a private email server and anonymously releasing the contents has never been identified or investigated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-14-2010 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 19 of 22 (586789)
10-14-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
10-14-2010 7:11 PM


The man is making the same vague accusations of dishonesty and conspiracy that have been made for decades, yet which have never been substantiated despite several investigations. Moreover, he's a nuclear physicist and control systems designer/decision making expert. Not a meteorologist, not a climate expert. He's effectively no more an authority on AGW than you or I. This in itself justifies the claim of his "denialism".
Every investigation -- including the most recent one which sorted out "Climategate" -- showed that there was no evidence of making stuff up, no evidence of lying about results, no evidence of mixing and matching data to provide the desired outcome.
It is a few people in one sector of society hurling indiscriminate lumps of mud at another sector of society simply because that second group has discovered something the first group doesn't like. The big problem arises when that small first group manages to convince a decent chunk of everyone else that throwing mud is right.
It's plain bullshit, designed to cripple the other side of a serious issue, while never actually supporting their own side. So one is always defending from accusation, the other always attacking and making them. The only result is that nothing gets done about it, because nobody has the resources to do anything but attack or defend.
There have been investigations: none of them showed what the naysayers claimed they would. And yet the naysayers continued to claim they have evidence of the dishonesty. Which they never supply. Asking for more investigations is, to put it lightly, a feckin' stupid idea.
You say you don't know what's going on, yet are prepared to criticise those who evidently do know the story and are stating their position based on that knowledge, i.e. by calling out a fool on his foolishness. Sure that's a reasonable thing to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-14-2010 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 20 of 22 (586792)
10-14-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
10-14-2010 7:11 PM


GDR writes:
A highly qualified and respected scientist makes the point that there is an agenda in play, and a lack of scientific objectivity in the institution that is charged with researching the issue.
He makes an assertion. As far as I can tell, his only hint at supporting evidence is his mention of "Climate Gate". One must presume that he is quite unaware that those accused in Climate Gate have been completely exonerated.
GDR writes:
What do we see on this forum. This highly respected scientist is called a fool, a denialist.
He is making false assertions, apparently based on bogus evidence that is circulating on denialist web sites.
GDR writes:
There doesn't seem to be any thought given that just maybe the charges he has made should at least be investigated.
The "Climate Gate" charges have been very thoroughly investigated, and have been debunked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-14-2010 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 21 of 22 (586851)
10-15-2010 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
10-14-2010 7:11 PM


GDR writes:
One of the things that does make me suspicious of the science is exactly what we see in this post.
You posted a general reply, not a reply to a specific message, so I couldn't tell what post you were referring to.
A highly qualified and respected scientist makes the point that there is an agenda in play, and a lack of scientific objectivity in the institution that is charged with researching the issue.
You seem to be ignoring everything already said that calls this characterization into question. In a world where billions of people can call attention to themselves through the Internet one does have to have a reasonability filter. Lewis isn't passing mine right now.
Fleishmann and Pons were respected chemists who drew immediate ridicule from knowledgeable corners of the physics community when they announced cold fusion. John A. Davison produced legitimate papers for years before going crazy around age 40 or so. Lewis' letter opens like this:
Lewis writes:
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...
Corruption? Money flood? The American Physical Society?
With the Internet huge numbers of issues clamor for our attention. If you want to make the dispassionate evidence-based argument that Lewis failed to make, go ahead. But given what's been provided so far I'm giving Lewis minimal credibility.
Some of us who are a little older, certainly me and I'm guessing maybe Coragyps based on a couple recent comments, can understand Lewis looking at his world and thinking it has gone crazy. I look around me at all the mindless cell-phone babbling and smart phone obsessing and definitely believe my own world has gone crazy. To me it seems obvious that at 87 Lewis is expressing his frustration at a world he no longer understands, a world where he has lost his former prestige and influence and become superfluous.
Change is inevitable. You have to embrace the future, otherwise you end up embittered and imprisoned in your own past.
--Percy
Edited by Admin, : Punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-14-2010 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 22 of 22 (586856)
10-15-2010 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
10-14-2010 7:11 PM


One of the things that does make me suspicious of the science is exactly what we see in this post...This highly respected scientist is called a fool, a denialist. a good scientist gone bad, an aggrieved child and that his is not knowledgeable and is going senile.
I fail to see the problem. Do you think that in science your reputation might provide you tenure on truth or immunity from criticism? Should I point towards James Watson?
Einstein denied the conclusions of quantum physics - and he was an expert in physics. Are we not allowed to criticise this? Suggest it might have been related to age or pride?
Only religious institutions have the concept of infallible practitioners, surely?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 10-14-2010 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024