|
American Physical Society wrote: Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions . Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS 2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while under consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP. The position had been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.
As ever, follow the bloody money.....
American Physical Society wrote: Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies such as the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor’s office that the APS will continue to support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of taxpayer dollars into research that must support the alarmist credo. APS has been silent on the documented practice by some climate scientists aimed at preventing opposing research from being published – the clear corruption of the so-called peer review process.
American Physical Society wrote: On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
* Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
* The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
Strangely the IPCC’s own information shows that if by dwell time they mean it is the conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the statement is wrong – by a lot.. The IPCC’s Bern carbon cycle model http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html gets a 16 year half life. If it is the time for the last molecule to get picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless. At the very least, the statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.
merrick wrote: jshell wrote: Another thing, better wrap up for this winter, it's likely to be the coldest we've seen in a very, very long time.
Ho and, furthermore, ho.
The winter quote, whilst almost certainly being accurate, was ‘tongue in cheek’. I know the difference between weather and climate.
merrick wrote: been explained to you many times on this forum..... [/quote]
There you go again in that tiresome, patronising manner. If it were clear cut, without obvious fraud, there would be no discussion. You can quote IPCC reports as much as you like, there are OTHER viewpoints and the ‘truth will out’ at some point. The IPCC were set up NOT to examine IF there was MMGW, it does not consider any other viewpoint. It ignores or suppresses ALL other information or viewpoints. It ‘peer reviews’ ONLY within its own circles. THAT’S NOT FUCKING SCIENCE!
Even Phil Jones of the CRU said that there had “been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years”....
Many of the surface temp datasets around the world show warming within expected limits.
The datasets used to ‘prove’ MMGW are around 30 years old on a planet that’s a little older than that.
The surface temperature datasets have been manipulated, removing around 75% of the cold weather stations
NASA admits that some of its own satellites have been measuring 00’s of degrees above actual.
The satellites have been proven to read incorrectly due to fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field.
There are vast areas of the globe that are not included in the datasets as they do not follow the ‘new gospel’.
|
