Saturday, December 5, 2009
"In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like 'fools' and using climate change to increase taxes.
"He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years."
"If you're offended by that statement, you're exactly who I'm talking about."
"According to Olbermann, the comedian John Stewart is central to Fox’s conspiracy to deny climate change. Evidence? Stewart poked fun at Al Gore and the climategate scandal.
"Fox used the profanity-laden skit to claim Stewart now believes climate change is a sham.
"In fact, not unlike Olbermann, Stewart buys into the climate change scam. Olbermann rightly points out that Fox skewed Stewart’s segment and made ludicrous claims. But then Fox, like its ideological flip-side at MSNBC (owned by Microsoft and the death merchant General Electric), is in the highly profitable business of propaganda, half-truths, and outright lies."
"Does 'ClimateGate' ring a bell?"
"And Obama’s science Czar, John Holdren, is still hanging on for grim death, even though he is one of those caught in the CRU email records as a fraud. As is usual for serial liars, he casually says he will apologise IF the accusations can be proved to be true. He isn’t worried one little bit – why should he be worried when his boss gets away with his own deceptions? If a Kenyan with no documentation can get away with it, why can’t a poor excuse for a scientist? He will just brazen it out to the end.
"The same Guardian correspondent believes against all the cards stacked against greenism. If she’s not careful, the cards will collapse around her head. Better to leave the sinking ship now. She repeats old green foolishness, that the 'coal industry produces more gas emissions than any other fuel source.' Like all those who bleat to the same mantra, she does not stop to wonder just how any science can measure exactly who emits what carbon! It does not even occur to her. And that is a very sad indictment.
"However, Hansen is right on one thing: he hates cap-and-trade. He says it is the same as the old Catholic Indulgences: just pay some money and your sins are blotted out. Unfortunately, this one slender sliver of truth doesn’t save his hide as a scientist. Like someone who believes stinking pus is the sign of a clean wound, Hansen believes (or, more accurately, he says he believes) that by not stopping CO2 emissions the seas will rise dramatically. A UK court forced scientists to admit such an event is 'impossible', and the science behind the claim doesn’t exist… the stark sea-rise figures are a deliberate fraud put there by the IPCC!! (See my book). The IPCC slid the decimal point a few places to make a few centimetres (the usual sea rise figures) into anything up to twenty feet!! Yet, this ‘top scientist’ repeats what is a known fraud. Does he even know the IPCC has since changed the figures back to what they should be? I don’t think so.
"He also repeats the idea that humans are causing a rise in CO2 that is dangerous. Neither claim can be proved by science. It is all guesswork based on bad science."
This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.
By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled "The Climate Science isn't Settled," for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.
What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)
We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.
None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.
If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS email@example.com, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.
Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
"America is now in the Intimidation stage, as witnessed by the attacks on critics of the Administration. The threats to Insurance companies and banks that would not accept Government control. All that is needed now is a Crisis severe enough to give the Government an excuse to isolate incarcerate and neutralize dissenters. A pandemic such as a more deadly (mutated version) of the H1N1 virus could be used as an excuse.
"If the current health care plan is passed, and the Cap and Trade Bill is passed, the attacks on dissenters will continue until the people are enslaved. Then there will be a period of Normalization. Every aspect of American lives will be controlled by the Government."
"Did you sign up for this deal? I ask, because the deal that has been shoved at us is way more than just a by-product of the previous administration, as is always blamed. This quandary is monumental, and we still have no idea just how bad the deal really is. It looks bad; it smells worse. To begin with, each newborn taking his or her first breath of life is basically being handed a receipt of debt, courtesy of our government’s erroneously titled stimulus package. This scenario might appear whimsical, but it’s the truth of the matter—and it’s a shame.
"Going forward, that individual must now live a life under a guise of liberty and freedom, both of which have been assaulted by our 'leaders' without any consideration of future generations. How can a person truly be free if the nation that he or she is a citizen of has bankrolled his or her financial future?"
"Claude Halstead Van Tyne, in his book, The Causes of the War of Independence, describes the circumstances which caused America’s War for Independence. The cause was not 'taxation without representation' per se. It was not 'the government is too big' per se. It was not 'taxes are too high' per se. It was the concept that government is limited by the principles of freedom found in the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and secured by their constitution; and government actions taken beyond those limitations are to be met with resistance. In Van Tyne’s description of this causation, what is strikingly similar to our current situation is that Great Britain considered their constitution to be 'living' and to give Parliament and King George the power, authority and right to essentially act in whatever manner it deemed appropriate. Van Tyne observes,
"'The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Samuel Adams and many of his fellow countrymen, on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by "the law of God and nature," and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but Lord Mansfield and his followers, on the other hand, asserted rightly that "the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something," and "there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now" and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain… Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.' The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), 235, 237.
"Great Britain’s political ideology is the same ideology that 99% of our federal politicians demonstrate today! This is just what Congressman Henry Hyde (R) expressed in 2006, when he responded to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that Congress must declare war before G.W. Bush can constitutionally launch (what is now) an eight year and growing war half way across the world, sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to risk their lives and die and spending hundreds of billions of tax payer monies to support the same. Hyde says, 'There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.' James T. Bennett, Homeland Security Scams, (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006), 133. Did the vast majority of Congressmen (Republican and Democrat, House and Senate) believe the same as Hyde? We know they did because they continued to shirk and even ignore their constitutional obligation to declare war, while funding the same with our money and with our lives--all contrary to the constitution, to the lessons of human history and to the principles of self-government and limited government.
"Many thousands of persons all across America repeatedly and continually scream the voice of discontent of unconstitutional government. Thousands of books have been written on how the constitution has been ignored, trampled, despised, and even laughed at by those we elect to uphold that very document and the principles founding it. I do not need delineate the (not so 'light and transient') abuses, encroachments, and usurpations upon our constitution. It is a known fact. It is admitted. There is no hiding it. The long train of abuses is evident, established and provable. Our federal government has, through fraud, deceit, force and bribe, converted our once Constitutional Federal Republic into a Despotic National Oligarchy. We now have the same (if not worse) form and type of government that we seceded from in 1776. Yet, many people who claim to love the constitution will criticize those who recommend a different course of action other than voting for a President who will hopefully appoint a 'conservative' judge to the supreme court; other than focusing our solutions on Washington D.C.; other than playing political games with those causing and controlling all that we claim to despise; or other than confining our redress to federal courts and two political parties."
"No, Al, let me set you straight. I and my generation want nothing to do with racism. Each of us, growing up in the 60's, were indelibly scarred by the racism and prejudice of our forebearers during the Civil Rights legacy. If anything, we were hyper-sensitive toward any manifestation of bigotry, to the point where we would excuse the most vile eruptions of reverse racism, giving it a pass over and over again.
"Anything, just to not be accused of 'cultural insensitivity' ( the modern nightmare of so many teachers).
"Truth be told Al, for myself and many Americans, the first time we saw actual racism on parade was by your seditious finger pointing, arousing in many a loathing and abhorrence for your feeble attempts to capture the headlines, creating issues from thin air, issues meant, through jingoistic boorishness, to stir up trouble and keep us in a perpetual racial quagmire."
"First, it is billed as a 'listening' event by the Administration – and everybody knows what that word really means: We’ll pretend to listen in order to shut everybody up, then we’ll do exactly what we planned all along.
"Second, the invite list is mostly representatives from academia and think tanks, Big Labor and Big Business . . . in other words, three groups of people who know almost nothing about how to actually create, rather than merely preserve, jobs.
"In other words, if you’re on line at the employment office right now, and you’re hoping that the Jobs Summit is actually going to help you get, you know, a job, you’d better keep filling out that form in front of you.
"In watching President Obama the last few months, it’s become increasingly apparent that there are certain things he is very much interested in. Nationalized health care. Protecting and expanding organized labor. Instituting a national energy scheme. Repositioning America’s role in the world as a partner rather than a leader. Meanwhile, there are two nettlesome problems that continue to demand his attention, but he seems annoyed at having to deal with: Afghanistan and Unemployment. And like most of us, he has reacted to both by dithering, postponing decisions and acting busy on other, equally pressing matters."
Dec. 2-3 Nov. 13-15
Approve 48% 55%
Disapprove 50% 42%
No opinion 2% 3%
Oct. 30-Nov. 1 Oct. 16-18 Sept. 11-13 Aug. 28-31 July 31-Aug. 3 June 26-28
2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
Approve 54% 55% 58% 53% 56% 61%
Disapprove 45% 43% 40% 45% 40% 37%
No opinion 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3%
May 14-17 Apr. 23-26 Apr. 3-5 Mar. 12-15 Feb. 18-19 Feb. 7-8
2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
Approve 62% 63% 66% 64% 67% 76%
Disapprove 35% 33% 30% 34% 29% 23%
No opinion 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 1%
QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 COMBINED
1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
2. (IF DISAPPROVE) Do you disapprove because you think his policies and actions since he became president have been too liberal, or because you think his policies and actions have not been liberal enough?
Approve (from Question 1) 48%
Disapprove, too liberal 40%
Disapprove, not liberal enough 8%
Disapprove, unsure on Question 2 2%
No opinion 2%
18. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?
Dec. 2-3 Nov. 13-15 Oct. 30-Nov. 1
2009 2009 2009
Favor 46% 45% 40%
Oppose 51% 52% 58%
No opinion 2% 3% 2%
Oct. 16-18 Sept. 11-13 Aug. 28-31 July 31-Aug. 3 May 14-17 Apr. 3-5 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
Favor 41% 39% 42% 41% 50% 53%
Oppose 57% 58% 57% 54% 48% 46%
No opinion 2% 3% 2% 5% 3% 1%
Feb. 18-19 Dec. 1-2 July 27-29 Jan. 19-21 Sept. 22-24
2009 2008 2008 2007 2006
Favor 47% 52% 46% 44% 50%
Oppose 51% 46% 52% 52% 48%
No opinion 2% 2% 2% 4% 2%
19. Regardless of how you feel about the war in general, do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to send about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the situation there?
No opinion 2%
Regardless of how you feel about the war in general, do you favor or oppose President Bush's plan to send about 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq in an attempt to stabilize the situation there?
20. President Obama also announced that he plans to start removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. Thinking specifically about that policy and not about Obama's decision to announce it at this time, do you favor or oppose Obama's plan to start removing troops from Afghanistan in 2011?
No opinion 2%
21. And regardless of how you feel about the plan to start removing troops in 2011, do you think it was a good idea or a bad idea for Obama to announce that policy at this time?
Good idea 39%
Bad idea 59%
No opinion 2%
22. And just your best guess -- do you think conditions in Afghanistan will or will not be good enough in the summer of 2011 for the U.S. to start removing troops?
Conditions will be good enough 33%
Conditions will not be good enough 61%
No opinion 6%
30. Whose policies do you blame for the problems that the U.S. is currently facing in Afghanistan -- the policies of George W. Bush or the policies of Barack Obama?
Both equal/Neither (vol.) 18%
No opinion 1%
31. And if the current situation facing the U.S. in Afghanistan does not improve by the summer of 2011, whose policies would you blame for that -- the policies of George W. Bush, or the policies of Barack Obama?
Both equal/Neither (vol.) 12%
No opinion 1%
"This crude use of language and failure to engage with the underlying issues and doubts partly explains the scepticism in the polling. It is like the advocates of Euro federalism. Instead of telling us why it is good for us in detail and dealing with all the counter arguments, they simply repeat endlessly that 3 million UK jobs depend on exports to the EU, as if these jobs would be lost without federalism. They ignore the other 25 million jobs that do not depend on such trade as if they did not not matter or are unaffected by overly intrusive and expensive European government. The more the federalists have made their case in the UK, the more Eurosceptic the public has become. There is a lot of overlap between Euroscepticism and climate change scepticism. Some climate change sceptics see warming theory as another excuse by the EU to extend its power of regulation and to encourage higher taxation.
"The main reason many people are climate sceptics is they do not like the remedies the warmists recommend. They see the theory as a way of increasing a whole range of taxes on them, and increasing regulation which is a kind of back door taxation.
"The warmists and their Ministers need to set out in detail their case to the public. They need to show that
"1. The world is warming. Some temperature series show no warming in the last decade, and a cooler period after the war until the 1970s.
2. That warming comes from rising C02 levels
3. That past periods of warming prior to industrialisation in both historical and geological time were caused by processes and events that do not apply today
4. That the man made element of increasing CO2 is the bit that matters and will cause unacceptable warming
5. That it makes more sense to try to stop the CO2 increases and the warming, than to invest in ways of handling the adverse consequences
6. That taxing and regulating is a better way to change human behaviour than incentives and technology
"I have been asked by several to set out my view. Some ask me that no doubt because they wish to play silly political games in the press by misrepresenting my view by crudely labelling me as a climate change denier as part of their attempt to divide and rule. I have set out my views on several occasions. We should concentrate on tackling any adverse consequences of climate change, as it is not in the UK’s power to solve the global problem. I have long been an advocate of more reservoir capacity for water in the UK, to meet the demands of the rising population. I have wanted better flood defences. We need these things now.
"The UK should parrticipate in international conferences on the environment as a voice of reason. It is a very good idea to lower our dependence on fossil fuels, to recycle where sensible, to improve fuel efficiency, and to clean up our air and water. It would be helpful if the scientists who do believe warming theory could set out proper temperature series for the public to see with the underlying data, and could produce a climate model which did predict future patterns of temperature. The long run climate data could then be analysed with explanations for past variations. Then maybe more people would be persuaded that the 'science is settled' and 'the risks are great.'"