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.May Cap n Trade never be.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Global Warming Hoax
This article by the Telegraph UK is just too juicy to pass up. The closing paragraph of a letter by Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says what we all know. Basically, if I may add my comment, "Follow the money".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On Another blog that I periodically post on "Rationally Speaking", I was attempting to debate a post written by the owner claiming that people without the capacity to understand the complex science behind the complex modeling that is used to prove AGW or ACC. I was outraged in the attempt to try and move the debate from that actual science to who should be allowed to debate the actual science. As I told him, why fear debate when you have the truth. If the science is so complex that the layman but intelligent hobby scientist can no longer understand it, how likely is it to be accurate.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I can clarify my point. It also takes very complex physical atmospheric modeling to predict the weather 7 days out. But due to that complexity, the chances of the forcast being accurate on each day becomes less and less with each passing day. Day one: yeah probably nailed it. Day 2: good chance you predicted the right forcast. Day 3: now you have reached your point where accumulative error is mounting, maybe you got it right, 35% chance you didnt. Day 4: forget about it, 50/50 chance you nailed it, but anyone can do the same with their best guess. Day 5: Anyone who looks for the weatherman to predict five days out should stop waisting his time. By the time you get to day 7 there is no degree of accuracy whatsoever.
GW is the same but worse, it requires much more complex modeling with a much higher degree of inaccuracy due to the accumulative error of said complex modeling.
Bottom line is that yes, the science may point to climate change with relation to CO2 emission. But the bottom line is also- what that means to the outome of the earth and its average temperature is completely unknown and the variability in trying to model that outcome has no more accuracy than the weatherman trying to forcast July 12th 2011.
As Milton freidman says: Zero pollution is catastrophic. That means no planes, trains, or automobiles. No delivary of food. No means for production of medicine. Zero pollution means the worlds population is catastrophically killed through starvation. So the common sense approach is to understand that some degree of pollution is beneficial to people. Freidman came up with some common sense approaches to reduction of pollution. Such as discovering the actual cost of pollution reduction through a concervative tax program. Add a equal part tax and an equal part tax credit for each unit of pollution. For example: tax 1 dollar per CO2 unit to said industry while adding a tax credit for each unit removed. So to the company the produces 100 CO2 units a day, they have to pay $100 a day. If the company removes 1 unit it would be worth 2 dollars to them (because they get 1 dollar less tax plus 1 dollar tax credit). So if they remove 50 units from their daily output, then we know it cost them less than 2 dollars to do so (or $100), or they would not have done it. After that 50 mark perhaps their personal cost goes up to 3 dollars to remove any more so it is not cost effective. Through this simple common sense program, we could at least find out the actual cost to a company of producing less emissions. If we followed the first 10 years of this program very carefully, we would gain an understanding of the cost of CO2 emission control and eventually remove the tax program enirely and pass a common sense regulation that would be of a minimal cost to the particular industry. This done carefully, with the ultimate objective of not hurting the industry thus hurting its consumers and employees can be a common sense apporach to CO2 reduction.
ReplyDeleteWe as concervatives need to bring common sense pollution reduction in to play since the left is trying to use pollution reduction and GW as a means to accomplish their objectives of redistribution of wealth. Global warming is a farce. Catastrophy is a means for passing legislation the people would otherwise never dream of even discussing. The left needs aglobal catastrophic situation in order to dictate the solution. As the letter in your post shows, it is far from mainstream science but the money involved has made it difficult to for most scientists to bring truth to the forefront. Even this professor waited until he was late in years to go public. We will see a continued cycle of this scientific dissent that will be hidden for the most part. I wonder what these people will do and say when 40 years has come and gone and the ice caps are still there. We are already coming to the point of 20 or so years where people are seeing the truth of stable temperatures in their own part of town. How much longer do they think they can convince even the dumbest citizen that he must forfeit his riches or he will be under water.
As Milton freidman says: Zero pollution is catastrophic. That means no planes, trains, or automobiles. No delivary of food. No means for production of medicine. Zero pollution means the worlds population is catastrophically killed through starvation. So the common sense approach is to understand that some degree of pollution is beneficial to people. Freidman came up with some common sense approaches to reduction of pollution. Such as discovering the actual cost of pollution reduction through a concervative tax program. Add a equal part tax and an equal part tax credit for each unit of pollution. For example: tax 1 dollar per CO2 unit to said industry while adding a tax credit for each unit removed. So to the company the produces 100 CO2 units a day, they have to pay $100 a day. If the company removes 1 unit it would be worth 2 dollars to them (because they get 1 dollar less tax plus 1 dollar tax credit). So if they remove 50 units from their daily output, then we know it cost them less than 2 dollars to do so (or $100), or they would not have done it. After that 50 mark perhaps their personal cost goes up to 3 dollars to remove any more so it is not cost effective. Through this simple common sense program, we could at least find out the actual cost to a company of producing less emissions. If we followed the first 10 years of this program very carefully, we would gain an understanding of the cost of CO2 emission control and eventually remove the tax program enirely and pass a common sense regulation that would be of a minimal cost to the particular industry. This done carefully, with the ultimate objective of not hurting the industry thus hurting its consumers and employees can be a common sense apporach to CO2 reduction.
ReplyDeleteWe as concervatives need to bring common sense pollution reduction in to play since the left is trying to use pollution reduction and GW as a means to accomplish their objectives of redistribution of wealth. Global warming is a farce. Catastrophy is a means for passing legislation the people would otherwise never dream of even discussing. The left needs aglobal catastrophic situation in order to dictate the solution. As the letter in your post shows, it is far from mainstream science but the money involved has made it difficult to for most scientists to bring truth to the forefront. Even this professor waited until he was late in years to go public. We will see a continued cycle of this scientific dissent that will be hidden for the most part. I wonder what these people will do and say when 40 years has come and gone and the ice caps are still there. We are already coming to the point of 20 or so years where people are seeing the truth of stable temperatures in their own part of town. How much longer do they think they can convince even the dumbest citizen that he must forfeit his riches or he will be under water.