Nobel laureate resigns from American ...

Nobel laureate resigns from American Physical Society to protest the...

There are 26 comments on the NorCalBlogs story from Sep 14, 2011, titled Nobel laureate resigns from American Physical Society to protest the.... In it, NorCalBlogs reports that:

WUWT may recall the late Dr. Hal Lewis led the way on this last year as I covered at WUWT and in an op-ed at the Christian Science Monitor.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NorCalBlogs.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Steve

East Setauket, NY

#1 Sep 14, 2011
Errr...you pick up news from "Watt's Up with that? It's notoriously anti-science. Not sure who the prof from RPI is, but he is quoted as making some ignorant statements - even though he's quite correct that nothing is truly "incontrovertible"

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#2 Sep 14, 2011
Flamer, Your bias is showing. Watts UP With That is more science oriented than blogs like Climate Progress, etc. It also is willing to allow dissenting views unlike alarmist sites like Real Climate and Sceptical Science.

More scientists actually show up and comment at WUWT than at any other blog site. That is why it won the "Best Science Blog" award. Scientists from many disciplines like Judith Curry, Walt Meier, Leif Svaalgaard, Roger Pielke, etc regularly comment on the science at WUWT. Many discussions actually go very deep into the science of climate and include many links to peer-reviewed papers and historical accounts.

Open your mind. You might actually learn something.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#3 Sep 14, 2011
Gee. So he researches Superconductivity, Tunneling , and Immunology, Tissue Culture, Manipulating Single Molecules

No matter how much credibility he has in THOSE areas, his education on climate is woefully inadequate. Too bad these guys get to be 'senior researchers' and start thinking they are qualified to speak on ANY science, even ones they have never really looked into.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#4 Sep 14, 2011
He's 82 yo and comes from Norway. He's been a risk taker all his life - in my assessment. My problem is that he might be legally liable in his position. For one thing, he's certain when so many are aware of the uncertainties.

Maybe he did not want to pay the APS dues. Simply said.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#5 Sep 14, 2011
The American Physical Society says,‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’
//////////
Another 40,000 member science organization backs AGW. Nothing newsworthy about that.......

One old guy stopped his membership...... Now that IS newsworthy.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#6 Sep 14, 2011
He's not just any old member. His membership is important to the APS members because of his Nobel prize.

Like I wrote above, he might be liable legally for his position. He needs to understand this before advising others.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8 Sep 15, 2011
litesong wrote:
The American Physical Society says,‘The evidence is incontrovertible...
: not open to question : indisputable

: unfalsifiable : not science
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#9 Sep 15, 2011
The American Physical Society should be held accountable for their fraudulent statements:

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

Total BS!

PROOF:

The American Physical Society (OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION) CANNOT PRODUCE:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth

The Laws of Science and Measurement support for the AGW LIE and Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" DO NOT EXIST.

And every measurement, EVER DONE, confirms that the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" does not exist and that AGW is a Fraud.

---------
G&T published their peer reviewed paper that PROVED that the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" DOES NOT EXIST and is backed by EVERY MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE that PROVES that a Colder Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

The G&T peer reviewed paper confirms that the "Greenhouse Effect" is a fictitious mechanism and is PROVEN by ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS.

There are a number of Laws of Science that are violated by the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"

And, EVERY MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE, shows that a Colder Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

Quotations:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.— Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.— Karl Popper
--------

The American Physical Society should be charged with FRAUD and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and Dr.Ivar Giaever should get ANOTHER NOBEL PRIZE.
LessHypeMoreFact

Concord, Canada

#10 Sep 15, 2011
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
: not open to question : indisputable
: unfalsifiable : not science
indisputable: NOT falsified.
LessHypeMoreFact

Concord, Canada

#11 Sep 15, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
He's not just any old member. His membership is important to the APS members because of his Nobel prize.
He's 82, hasn't even done particle physics lately, and nobody will miss him. THAT is the basic reason he let his membership lapse. It was the last gasp of faded glory.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#12 Sep 16, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
Gee. So he researches Superconductivity, Tunneling , and Immunology, Tissue Culture, Manipulating Single Molecules
No matter how much credibility he has in THOSE areas, his education on climate is woefully inadequate. Too bad these guys get to be 'senior researchers' and start thinking they are qualified to speak on ANY science, even ones they have never really looked into.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
From the guy who wrote:
NoFactAllHype wrote:
I am not a scientist. I am a university educated engineer, who STARTED in the science but was found wanting.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#13 Sep 16, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
indisputable: NOT falsified.
Yes it is!
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#14 Sep 16, 2011
Gord wrote:
No. Indisputable is defined as 'not falsified' and 97% of the climate scientists and all the major science academies agree that AGW theory has NOT been falsified. They must not be listening to your delusions.
Fun Facts

United States

#15 Sep 16, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Indisputable is defined as 'not falsified' and 97% of the climate scientists and all the major science academies agree that AGW theory has NOT been falsified. They must not be listening to your delusions.
That's like trying to prove a negative. God is also not falsifiable. Does that prove God exists?

Extraterrestrial aliens are also not falsifiable, does that prove aliens exist? And will they invade us because of global warming?

I don't believe there is a God and I think there's a real good chance there are ET aliens, but what I believe is not relevant.

It's not what I believe that is important, it is what I can provide evidence for that is important. Provide the evidence for man made climate change and you won't have to rely on 'non falsifiability'.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16 Sep 16, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
indisputable: NOT falsified.
indisputable: unquestionable

Science is about asking questions, if you want unquestionable, take up religion or leftism.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#17 Sep 16, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
No. Indisputable is defined as 'not falsified' and 97% of the climate scientists and all the major science academies agree that AGW theory has NOT been falsified.
[ad hominem deleted]
The AGW theory is sound, it simply lacks figures that make sense.
If you have any figures, please supply them, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, don't keep them to yourself.
LessHypeMoreFact

Concord, Canada

#18 Sep 16, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like trying to prove a negative. God is also not falsifiable. Does that prove God exists?
Nonsensical.

Facts are indisputable when they cannot be falsified. There is not DISPUTE.

Fantasies are never indisputable. They are based on belief only which is itself an indication of diverging opinions.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Extraterrestrial aliens are also not falsifiable, does that prove aliens exist? And will they invade us because of global warming?
You have a rich fantasy life. Too bad you cannot deal with reality.

When and if a race of aliens becomes a 'fact', they will be indisputable UNLESS you can falsify their existence by proving that they are humans wearing costumes, the result of mass hypnosis, etc. The TEST of fact in science is falsifiability. There is no 'reality check' for fantasy. A contradiction in terms.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe there is a God and I think there's a real good chance there are ET aliens, but what I believe is not relevant.
It's not what I believe that is important, it is what I can provide evidence for that is important. Provide the evidence for man made climate change and you won't have to rely on 'non falsifiability'.
I find that you are falsifiable, on a regular basis. At no point do you make ANY sense.

"it is what I can provide evidence for that is important.". In other words, facts which you cannot falsify. It is not the evidence that you need to worry about but whether there is a fact that proves your evidence has been misread or mislead. Like all the evidence for AGW that makes it an indisputable fact. ANY falsification of a major tenet of that evidence would destroy the fact. However, the major point here is that no such falsification had stood up to scrutiny and therefore AGW is 'indisputable'.
LessHypeMoreFact

Concord, Canada

#19 Sep 16, 2011
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
indisputable: unquestionable
Science is about asking questions, if you want unquestionable, take up religion or leftism.
Indisputable is NOT 'unquestioned'. Indisputable means that no amount of questioning has resulted in evidence to falsify the fact.

Take your religion and shove it. You cannot even distinguish fact from fantasy.
LessHypeMoreFact

Concord, Canada

#20 Sep 16, 2011
Illustration of 'indisputable' for the dim bulbs.

Fred sees the north side of a house and notes that it is white. He states as a fact that the house is white.

Is this indisputable?

NO. He has not checked the south side of the house which may be painted green. In order for the statement about the house to be 'indisputable', Fred must first try VERY HARD to 'falsify' the claim. i.e He must look at the South, East, North, and West walls. At some point he has exhausted all efforts to falsify the claim and he can agree that 'the house is white' is indisputable fact.

Similarly AGW is indisputable fact because of the efforts science has put into questioning it and eliminating every conceivable point of debate on the evidence.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#21 Sep 16, 2011
The Science is Disputed

Those who argue that drastic action must be taken immediately to save the planet from human induced global warming depend upon the idea that scientific inquiry is complete and beyond dispute. Douglas J. Keenan, who has published in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology provides an example showing this just is not so.
http://hnn.us/node/39393

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Physics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gravitational Mass and Inertial Mass (Jun '14) Jun '17 Newton 14
About Time Dilation (Oct '10) Jun '17 Newton 41
Is Inertial Force not a Real Force ? (Jan '17) Jun '17 Newton 12
Theory of Plasmatic Fundamentals May '17 Julius the Jules 1
Is time travel possible? (Oct '10) May '17 Engima1956 20
EM drive uses the equation E/c^2 = mass? May '17 TRquestion 1
Newton's gravitational equation May '17 mich 1
More from around the web