Professor Hal Lewis Joins The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Bfgrn

Bfgrn

New member
Hal Lewis' resignation from the American Physical Society just didn't pass the sniff test. Now we find out why. Lewis joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an organization with ties to the 20 year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries that definitely doesn't pass any sniff tests. The GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and lists Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist, as the director.

Benny Peiser is a UK social anthropologist on the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" list. Peiser is a Social Anthropologist, and not a Climate Scientist. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

In Lewis' resignation letter he cites “Climategate” emails as evidence scientists at East Anglia’s world-leading Climate Research Unit were rigging evidence in favor of man-made climate change...they DON'T.

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

* Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.

* Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.

* An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.

* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

-----------------------------------------------------

Professor Hal Lewis Joins The GWPF

Tuesday, 12 October 2010 09:17 administrator


The Global Warming Policy Foundation is delighted and honoured to announce that Professor Harold (Hal) Lewis, one of America's most distinguished physicists, has agreed to join our Academic Advisory Council.

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara. He is a former member of the Defense Science Board and former chairman of its Technology panel. He was co-founder and former Chairman of JASON and a former member of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board. On 6 October 2010, he resigned from the American Physical Society, 67 years after he had joined the APS, in protest over the politicalisation of climate research and the stifling of scientific debate.

The GWPF Academic Advisory Council is composed of researchers, scientists, economists and science authors who provide the GWPF with timely scientific, economic and policy advice. It evaluates new studies and reports, explores future research projects and makes recommendations on issues related to climate research and policy.


If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Douglas Adams
 
Bfgrn said:
Hal Lewis' resignation from the American Physical Society just didn't pass the sniff test. Now we find out why. Lewis joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an organization with ties to the 20 year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries that definitely doesn't pass any sniff tests. The GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and lists Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist, as the director.

Benny Peiser is a UK social anthropologist on the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" list. Peiser is a Social Anthropologist, and not a Climate Scientist. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

In Lewis' resignation letter he cites “Climategate” emails as evidence scientists at East Anglia’s world-leading Climate Research Unit were rigging evidence in favor of man-made climate change...they DON'T.

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

* Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.

* Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.

* An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.

* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

-----------------------------------------------------

Professor Hal Lewis Joins The GWPF

Tuesday, 12 October 2010 09:17 administrator


The Global Warming Policy Foundation is delighted and honoured to announce that Professor Harold (Hal) Lewis, one of America's most distinguished physicists, has agreed to join our Academic Advisory Council.

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara. He is a former member of the Defense Science Board and former chairman of its Technology panel. He was co-founder and former Chairman of JASON and a former member of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board. On 6 October 2010, he resigned from the American Physical Society, 67 years after he had joined the APS, in protest over the politicalisation of climate research and the stifling of scientific debate.

The GWPF Academic Advisory Council is composed of researchers, scientists, economists and science authors who provide the GWPF with timely scientific, economic and policy advice. It evaluates new studies and reports, explores future research projects and makes recommendations on issues related to climate research and policy.


If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Douglas Adams
Click to expand...

May I remind you of a Thomas Huxley quote.

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas H. Huxley
 
tom prendergast said:
May I remind you of a Thomas Huxley quote.

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas H. Huxley
Click to expand...

tom, Goethe said: "There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance"

You have every right to your opinions, but not your own facts. And it is a fact there has been an active, ongoing, extremely well funded and highly organized campaign of misinformation and disinformation on climate change over the last 20 years. It is funded by oil corporations, mining cartels, coal producers and industries that have a vested interest in the status quo and defeating or delaying any legislation or policies that would move us away from their profit laden products.

To believe that these multi-billion dollar corporations would just benevolently sit by and twiddle their thumbs is gross naivete.

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2006

Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?

The vast majority of scientists has determined global warming to be a real threat. So why has it taken so long to convince Americans?

Misinformation Campaign

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries.

"The point of this campaign was not necessarily to persuade the public that global warming isn't happening," Gelbspan said. "It was to persuade the public that there is this state of confusion."

A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, "Victory will be achieved when … average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science."

To redefine global warming as theory -- not fact -- the industry funded research by "friendly" scientists such as Pat Michaels.
The industry's influence even extends into the White House -- where up until a few months ago a former oil industry lobbyist, Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the president's top environmental advisers, editing scientific reports to make global warming seem less threatening.

"From now on, we don't have scientists write reports and just take them," said Rick Piltz of the group Climate Science Watch. "We pass them through a White House filter before they're ever published. I mean, that's scandalous."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/Story?id=1770428&page=1

----------------------------------------------------------------

tom, HERE is the 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute. It is kind of 'Climategate' revelation that should cause more than just skepticism, it should create cynicism and get people writing their Congressman, Senators or government representatives to demand we finally pass a comprehensive energy policy.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

You say you are liberal on most things tom. You can't call yourself a liberal if you stand mute or support industries that harm human beings. Being liberal means you always put human costs ahead of mammon. The dirty energy we us today is making a very small group of people rich, while making the rest of us poor. These industries are keeping their huge profits and burdening us with their waste and cleanup costs. And part of that profit is funding the 'echo chamber' that disseminates the misinformation and disinformation you believe. But even more devastating is the human toll.

Coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates. Coal's most catastrophic and permanent impacts are from mountaintop removal mining. If the American people could see what I have seen from the air and ground during my many trips to the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country.
Robert F. Kennedy

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
 
Bfgrn said:
tom, Goethe said: "There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance"

You have every right to your opinions, but not your own facts. And it is a fact there has been an active, ongoing, extremely well funded and highly organized campaign of misinformation and disinformation on climate change over the last 20 years. It is funded by oil corporations, mining cartels, coal producers and industries that have a vested interest in the status quo and defeating or delaying any legislation or policies that would move us away from their profit laden products.

To believe that these multi-billion dollar corporations would just benevolently sit by and twiddle their thumbs is gross naivete.

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2006

Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?

The vast majority of scientists has determined global warming to be a real threat. So why has it taken so long to convince Americans?

Misinformation Campaign

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries.

"The point of this campaign was not necessarily to persuade the public that global warming isn't happening," Gelbspan said. "It was to persuade the public that there is this state of confusion."

A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, "Victory will be achieved when … average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science."

To redefine global warming as theory -- not fact -- the industry funded research by "friendly" scientists such as Pat Michaels.
The industry's influence even extends into the White House -- where up until a few months ago a former oil industry lobbyist, Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the president's top environmental advisers, editing scientific reports to make global warming seem less threatening.

"From now on, we don't have scientists write reports and just take them," said Rick Piltz of the group Climate Science Watch. "We pass them through a White House filter before they're ever published. I mean, that's scandalous."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/Story?id=1770428&page=1

----------------------------------------------------------------

tom, HERE is the 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute. It is kind of 'Climategate' revelation that should cause more than just skepticism, it should create cynicism and get people writing their Congressman, Senators or government representatives to demand we finally pass a comprehensive energy policy.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

You say you are liberal on most things tom. You can't call yourself a liberal if you stand mute or support industries that harm human beings. Being liberal means you always put human costs ahead of mammon. The dirty energy we us today is making a very small group of people rich, while making the rest of us poor. These industries are keeping their huge profits and burdening us with their waste and cleanup costs. And part of that profit is funding the 'echo chamber' that disseminates the misinformation and disinformation you believe. But even more devastating is the human toll.

Coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates. Coal's most catastrophic and permanent impacts are from mountaintop removal mining. If the American people could see what I have seen from the air and ground during my many trips to the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country.
Robert F. Kennedy

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
Click to expand...

Then you should agree that nuclear fission is the best answer until fusion reactors are developed. I cannot for the life of me understand why the US isn't investing the money, wasted on glorified windmills, on research into new types of reactors based on thorium.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle"]Thorium fuel cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Decay_chain(4n,Thorium_series).PNG" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Decay_chain%284n%2CThorium_series%29.PNG/300px-Decay_chain%284n%2CThorium_series%29.PNG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/1c/Decay_chain%284n%2CThorium_series%29.PNG/300px-Decay_chain%284n%2CThorium_series%29.PNG[/ame]
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
Then you should agree that nuclear fission is the best answer until fusion reactors are developed.
Click to expand...

The main problems with nuclear energy:

Environmental Degradation

* All the steps in the complex process of creating nuclear energy entail environmental hazards.

* The mining of uranium, as well as its refining and enrichment, and the production of plutonium produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area, including the groundwater, air, land, plants, and equipment. As a result, humans and the entire ecosystem are adversely and profoundly affected.

* Some of these radioactive isotopes are extraordinarily long-lived, remaining toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Presently, we are only beginning to observe and experience the consequences of producing nuclear energy

Nuclear Waste

* Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.

* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.

* The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.

* The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.

* There is a current proposal to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

o The plan is for Yucca Mountain to hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US. However, that would completely fill up the site and not account for future waste.

o Transporting the wastes by truck and rail would be extremely dangerous.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/nuclear-energy-fact-sheet.htm
 
Bfgrn said:
The main problems with nuclear energy:

Environmental Degradation

* All the steps in the complex process of creating nuclear energy entail environmental hazards.

* The mining of uranium, as well as its refining and enrichment, and the production of plutonium produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area, including the groundwater, air, land, plants, and equipment. As a result, humans and the entire ecosystem are adversely and profoundly affected.

* Some of these radioactive isotopes are extraordinarily long-lived, remaining toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Presently, we are only beginning to observe and experience the consequences of producing nuclear energy

Nuclear Waste

* Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.

* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.

* The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.

* The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.

* There is a current proposal to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

o The plan is for Yucca Mountain to hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US. However, that would completely fill up the site and not account for future waste.

o Transporting the wastes by truck and rail would be extremely dangerous.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/nuclear-energy-fact-sheet.htm
Click to expand...

You might at least read my post, I was advocating the development of thorium reactors which have none of those problems. There is also an awful lot of tosh surrounding nuclear waste disposal, I will call your attention to the advances made in the UK in the vitrification of nuclear waste.

http://www.allbusiness.com/nonmetallic-mineral/glass-glass-manufacturing/722088-1.html
 
tom prendergast said:
You might at least read my post, I was advocating the development of thorium reactors which have none of those problems. There is also an awful lot of tosh surrounding nuclear waste disposal, I will call your attention to the advances made in the UK in the vitrification of nuclear waste.

http://www.allbusiness.com/nonmetallic-mineral/glass-glass-manufacturing/722088-1.html
Click to expand...

I answered your post before you edited it. All I saw was:

'Then you should agree that nuclear fission is the best answer until fusion reactors are developed.'
 
tom prendergast said:
You have totally lost me now, what is your point?
Click to expand...

List of thorium-fueled reactors

Name and Country - Operation period

Peach Bottom, USA 1966–1972

Fort St Vrain, USA 1976–1989

MSRE ORNL, USA 1964–1969

Shippingport & Indian Point 1, USA 1977–1982, 1962–1980
 
Bfgrn said:
List of thorium-fueled reactors

Name and Country - Operation period

Peach Bottom, USA 1966–1972

Fort St Vrain, USA 1976–1989

MSRE ORNL, USA 1964–1969

Shippingport & Indian Point 1, USA 1977–1982, 1962–1980
Click to expand...

So what, all of those programmes have been abandoned. Where is the new research in the US?
 
BFGRN your objection to anything but green energy stupidity is just because you hate the western world, and wish to put it back in the dark ages via eliminating all rational sources of energy. Why are you this way?
 
tom prendergast said:
So what, all of those programmes have been abandoned. Where is the new research in the US?
Click to expand...

I don't know tom. I suspect it has been suffocated by the same forces that you seem to ignore.

We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature.
Edmund Burke
 
Where are the modern day equivalents of these collosi of the 20th century?


016.jpg

moz-screenshot.png
http://ginasiomental.com/016.jpg
 
Bfgrn said:
I don't know tom. I suspect it has been suffocated by the same forces that you seem to ignore.

We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature.
Edmund Burke
Click to expand...

But all this environmental dogmatism is just due to an elitist propaganda campaign to destroy the developed world and the people in it.

It's not some great natural law, it's just a well funded propaganda campaign to justify totalitarian energy policy and scarcity alarmism so people will accept democide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top