Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: TylerDurden on October 12, 2010, 06:00:16 am
-
I just read this interesting letter in the Daily Telegraph. I should point out that the global warming scam is relevant to RVAFers as there are related environmental scams such as the mercury-in-fish lies.
"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Anthony Watts describes it thus:
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
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.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)"
-
This is the way environmentalists work.
I used to represent my dad's company in an environmentalist group many years ago.
I stopped attending because I felt we were just puppets and had no say in anything.
-
tldr but.. >_>
Global warming a scam? I don't think so.
-
Yes it is a scam.
Did you ever hear of climate gate?
It was soooo big in uk.
The "scientists" were caught red handed with email evidence they have been doctoring the data.
And if you look at the time scale from 1000 years, our weather is nothing special.
-
Global warming means nothing to me
The climate has always fluctuated based on the solar cycles
There is evidence that the intensity of the sun fluctuates in irregular cycles, so that while the icecaps on earth shrink so do the methane ice caps on the moons of Jupiter, because of the sun, not because of what we exhale
The reason carbon dioxide has been singled out as a culprit , and a possible cause of a runway global warming catastorpy where all of the icecaps melt and the world is covered by water, is that it was the one thing that could be blamed on human activity. Once we are convinced that we are responsible for putting the fate of the world in danger then the global taxes are rolled out as a way to save us(get real)
IT was a scam from the beginning, a way for the worlds leading financial organizations to literally tax all of human activity. We breath out carbon dioxide for Christ sake.(its an attempt to tax breathing, does anyone see how loony the whole mascaraed has become) The truth is that increased Co2 levels actually promote plant life and would produce positive conditions for life to flourish.
The scam also distracts the scientific community from the real dangers and environmental polluting that will threaten us personally. Why is it that all these organizations can spend millions on studying and falsifying climate data, while completely ignoring the true issues of petrol chemical pollution and other more biologically relevent dangers such as poor food quality.
-
there are related environmental scams such as the mercury-in-fish lies.
Not only is this a misleading statement, even if you live in a place where the concentration of heavy metals in the ocean is not that bad (relative to what exactly). what about phlalates and other such hormone trashers? You are confusing genuine environmental problems with the climate change hogwash. So you like fish, knock yourself out. But why the need to propagate your personal noob oppinion like it was absolute truth. I heard you dont like milk is this true? .
...pffffft
-
tldr but.. >_>
Global warming a scam? I don't think so.
Then you are misinformed. It is true in the sense that earths temperatures fluctuates. which is something you could expect from a stone floating about in a vacuum with a huge ball of fire and radiation as a close neighbour. Global warming apparently also happens on the planets around us (they heat up together with earth in periods). Is that because of our swinely ways too?
Misleaders has skilfully exchanged the meaning of the words climate and environment in the public mindset. When you say cliamte, joe on the street thinks you mean environemtn, and he is all to aware how bad is is going and how fast. He used to fish down the lake you see, with his dad, but they cant anymore, and whatever mutants they catch are probably not edible anyway. Joe understand there is a serious problem. Then in comes the white coat and say....the climte is changing. And joe things...well thats it!!! Joe have seen this change!
did you notice btw, how it become "climate change" instead of "global warming"? yeah, their models showed to be bunkshite the kind you could not get pass a college professor, but this is science!
We are pigs, it is a fact. Our environment is taking an undesired beating for the profit of too few. The climate?. thats the weather Bob. Climate is a fancy pancy word for weather. The weather changes, the weather is extreme. We have a short period on earth that allows for life, the long term going trend on this dust ball is freezing way below zero. Hoooraay for global warming. more C02 means more and potentially larger plants. I can see how that is so sca....wait. I cant see why that's so scary. C02 is not a polutant by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Not only is this a misleading statement, even if you live in a place where the concentration of heavy metals in the ocean is not that bad (relative to what exactly). what about phlalates and other such hormone trashers? You are confusing genuine environmental problems with the climate change hogwash. So you like fish, knock yourself out. But why the need to propagate your personal noob oppinion like it was absolute truth. I heard you dont like milk is this true? .
...pffffft
The mercury in fish claims have long been proven to be an outright scam. Before making such a silly claim, you should at least read fishscam.com and that famous Seychelles study which proved that even Seychelles islanders who eat 10 times as much seafood as Americans for many years, still didn`t have any mercury-related issues. As for phthalates:hormones etc., they too have been hyped up to an extreme by environmentalists - I mean, the oceans are so vast that trace amounts of such substances are negligible at best, being hyper-diluted.
-
The mercury in fish claims have long been proven to be an outright scam.
by whom exactly?
Before making such a silly claim, you should at least read fishscam.com and that famous Seychelles study which proved that even Seychelles islanders who eat 10 times as much seafood as Americans for many years, still didn`t have any mercury-related issues.
I would be more interrested in seing the study that shows that the oceans are put together in exactly the same way, and subject to the same load of pollusion all over the word. Untill i have that study in my hand, the above 2 doesnt mean a thing beyond being local reccomendations. We have 5 times more mercury here than the levels from several studies, so we are adopting a rather safe than sorry attitude. Which...is not really silly, when you think about it. So far pregnant women and children below the age of 5 are reccomeneded not to eat fish.
phlalates causes boys to be born without a penis. rather grow up stupified by heavy metals than that....
I mean, the oceans are so vast that trace amounts of such substances are negligible at best,
I should laugh hurtfully at you for this statement, but I will let it pass for what it is. Pretty amusing.
-
The reason carbon dioxide has been singled out as a culprit , and a possible cause of a runway global warming catastorpy where all of the icecaps melt and the world is covered by water, is that it was the one thing that could be blamed on human activity. Once we are convinced that we are responsible for putting the fate of the world in danger then the global taxes are rolled out as a way to save us(get real)
Yeah, the much laughted at "tax on breathing" is here now. Im not laughing. Btw. this;:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
-Council on Foreign Relations : The First Global Revolution Report 1991
-
By whom? Many scientists such as those who did the rather important Seychelles study, which you don`t seem to have properly read, given your views.
The only truly valid claim that environmentalists can make re mercury-in-fish is that if industrial spills/dumpings of mercury occur, such as what happened in Minamata Bay, then mercury-poisoning in fish becomes a problem in the immediate small, local area until some time after . But such events happen so rarely that the usual hysteria re mercury-in-fish is laughable. Otherwise, mercury has always been in the oceans in natural trace amounts and never harmed anyone.
As for phthalates etc., again, this is a way overhyped subject, hijacked by environmentalists.
-
by whom exactly?
aajonus has a pay for article in his newsletter archives (fish meat mercury)
-
Misleaders has skilfully exchanged the meaning of the words climate and environment in the public mindset. When you say cliamte, joe on the street thinks you mean environemtn, and he is all to aware how bad is is going and how fast. He used to fish down the lake you see, with his dad, but they cant anymore, and whatever mutants they catch are probably not edible anyway.
We all agree the real deal is POLLUTION.
And it is an important difference in terminology. I'm not going along with the Al Gore idiocy on "warming", that is bull.
Now if they changed their battle cry to POLLUTION, then that is something we can agree to heartily.
Advances in power saving technologies is today a reality. The inventions and the science are all built. All they need is commercializing. Take a look at Keppe Motor. If commercialized, all your electric motors can be replaced with a keppe motor that consumes only 10% electric power of a regular motor for the same work... that can translate to 90% electricity savings for all air conditioning, et al.
-
By whom? Many scientists such as those who did the rather important Seychelles study, which you don`t seem to have properly read, given your views.
http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=690&toppic=kategori2&language=dk
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
-
We all agree the real deal is POLLUTION.
And it is an important difference in terminology. I'm not going along with the Al Gore idiocy on "warming", that is bull.
Now if they changed their battle cry to POLLUTION, then that is something we can agree to heartily.
Advances in power saving technologies is today a reality. The inventions and the science are all built. All they need is commercializing. Take a look at Keppe Motor. If commercialized, all your electric motors can be replaced with a keppe motor that consumes only 10% electric power of a regular motor for the same work... that can translate to 90% electricity savings for all air conditioning, et al.
agreed completely. If they somehow can make the scam turn over and away from dodgy science and into dealing with real problems by applying all the technology allready available, that would be a very good thing. I fear however that this is one of those things that has grown so large, that they cannot admit that -while the intention was good, the method of convincing people was still jaded and deceptive. Too much money involved by now. And the machaveli principle applies as much here as everywhere else where power and money is bedmates.
-
Even that article you showed me admits, here and there, that the evidence is ambiguous and not solid. As regards pollution, pollution exists on land as well, but that doesn`t mean we should all give up raw meats, so it would likewise be foolish for us to give up on raw seafood.
Another point:- many of the species studied are parrticularly vulnerable to pollution due to possessing certain characteristics not present in humans( frogs, for example).
-
Even that article you showed me admits, here and there, that the evidence is ambiguous and not solid. As regards pollution, pollution exists on land as well, but that doesn`t mean we should all give up raw meats, so it would likewise be foolish for us to give up on raw seafood.
it is 4 years old. It was just the one that kickstarted a public worry over where all these hormones was the most concentrated. It lead to more research being done and ocean fish caught near land had the potential. The health general office still advice eating plenty of fish, but argue that controlled fish farms may be the better choice untill we know what is going on. And that pregnent women should not take the chance. I think it is sane to err on the side of caution. especially when something as fundamental as reproduction and the whole male sex is in question. In comparison, the whole heavy metal debate is meaningless for now.
Another point:- many of the species studied are parrticularly vulnerable to pollution due to possessing certain characteristics not present in humans( frogs, for example).
a fair point.
-
Considering that there is far more solid evidence damning farmed fish as being extremely unhealthy(re canthaxanthin etc.), it is somewhat understandable that long-term rawpalaeos routinely recommend wildcaught raw fish over raw farmed fish.
-
Considering that there is far more solid evidence damning farmed fish as being extremely unhealthy(re caanthaxanthin etc.), it is somewhat understandable that long-term rawpalaeos routinely recommend wildcaught raw fish over raw farmed fish.
I also think we need to consider where people live. I live it a place most of the world have never heard of or think is part of Sweden or Norway. It is small and the natural-natural resources are not available anymore. We have no pristine lakes in which we can catch great fish. If I lived in Norway or upper sweden I would eat a lot more fish I catched myself. I have the same reservations about farmed fish that you do. Since our council of technology time and again show to be fairly objective, I think that is what struck me the most, because they too have to know about the risks of farmed fish. They are sincerely scared about this whole hormone thing.
-
Considering that there is far more solid evidence damning farmed fish as being extremely unhealthy(re caanthaxanthin etc.), it is somewhat understandable that long-term rawpalaeos routinely recommend wildcaught raw fish over raw farmed fish.
My buddy worked at a fish farm, he said its disgusting. They are all inbred like fuck(6eyes, 3 heads, a few fins, severe retardation) and the drugs they have to use of them cause of all the disease is mind numbing. He was actually a random guy i got talking to at a coffee shop, but quite smart. Case and point ONLY EAT WILD FISH
-
My buddy worked at a fish farm, he said its disgusting. They are all inbred like fuck(6eyes, 3 heads, a few fins, severe retardation) and the drugs they have to use of them cause of all the disease is mind numbing. He was actually a random guy i got talking to at a coffee shop, but quite smart. Case and point ONLY EAT WILD WISH
It's that bad? Geee...the CoT must be shitting their pants then. Thank you for the heads up. I now know that I chose wisely when i opted for wild norwegian salmon and paid a little extra for it. Thats faul!
-
Here`s an article re this issue:-
"
Poison experts attack 'hysteria' over chemicals
* Reddit
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook
*
* Robin McKie, science editor
* The Observer, Sunday 18 September 2005
* Article history
Britain's leading poison experts united last week to denounce pressure groups for mounting a 'hysterical, scaremongering' campaign about dangerous chemicals in the environment.
They accused the groups - in particular WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund - of acting irresponsibly by publishing reports claiming most people have blood swimming with toxic compounds.
As these chemicals - found in plastics and pesticides - have been linked to cancers, genital ailments and other defects, Britain faces a severe health risk, it is claimed.
Next month, WWF plans to take individuals found with these chemicals to Brussels as it campaigns to introduce new chemical controls across the European Union.
But the claims of dangers were rejected by the toxicologists. 'These compounds can cause diseases but not at the levels found in these tests,' said Professor Alan Boobis, of Imperial College, London.
'Most chemicals were found at a fraction of a part per billion. There is no evidence such concentrations pose any threat to people's health. This is irresponsible, hysterical scaremongering.'
In recent years, several reports have been published by WWF, based on work at Groningen University, in the Netherlands. Using advanced blood analysis techniques, they pinpointed brominated flame retardants, found in furniture and linked to neurological conditions; phthalates, from transparent plastic wrapping, associated with genital defects; tricosan, from soap, linked with liver damage; and bisphenol A, found in plastics and associated with cancer. Some were identified in mothers of newborn babies.
These findings have then been publicised by the pressure groups, though press releases have avoided mentioning the chemicals were usually found in less than one part per per billion.
'Frankly, I would have been very surprised if they hadn't found chemicals at that level,' said Professor John Henry, also of Imperial College. 'You find flame retardant traces because we have them in our homes. That's why fire deaths have plunged. These chemicals are monuments to mankind's progress.'
But this view was disputed by Greenpeace. 'Given we have huge uncertainties about these chemicals' biological activities at low concentrations, should we be exposing the unborn child to them?' asked its spokesman, Dr Paul Johnston.
Giles Gordon, of WWF, pointed to research on animals by the University of Missouri-Columbia that linked chemicals to neurological problems, and to work at Rochester University, New York, linking phthalate traces in women to genital problems in their newborn sons.
'The Rochester study is interesting,' admitted Professor Ken Donaldson of Edinburgh University. 'But it just one study. We need many more to establish the truth.'
The Groningen studies have appeared in most newspapers, including The Observer, and have been used to back arguments that tiny traces of many different compounds could combine to produce a single effect in people. This 'chemical cocktail' hypothesis is also dismissed. 'There is simply no evidence it exists,' added Boobis.
The public is being unfairly pressured, said Professor David Coggon, of Southampton University. 'People are being pressed to make decisions on misleading information.' Donaldson agreed. 'Groups are deliberately confusing risks with hazards. A loaded gun is hazard but not a risk if locked away safely. Bisphenol A is a hazard but not in minute traces. We do not say these chemicals are completely safe but that there is no evidence - so far - to show tiny traces are unsafe.'
Scientists say they are being asked to give categorical assurances that chemical traces are absolutely safe when they can only say there is no evidence to suggest danger. This looks weak against the robust assertions of campaigners, said Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre, which promotes the scientists' cause.
'These groups are more media savvy than scientists and have given themselves headlines galore by giving "terrifying" results of blood tests to a media they know has an insatiable appetite for scare stories. But it's important the public know most scientists take issue with their alarmist interpretation"
-
Well, Iceland just had it's hottest summer in history.
Thailand which I spent my summer in last year, had their hottest summer then aswell.
Perhaps these are fluctuations and perhaps I'm misinformed, but things are definitely hot right now.
-
Thanks for the insight Tyler, but our group of loud voices is not some crackpot environmentalist group out to catch attention. They are regarded as some of the leading minds in their fields and has the pedigree to show for it and are not known to be fuzzy alarmists.
forthehunt. The hottest summer in recorded history (which is about 150 years).
-
When viking explorers found Greenland, why did they call it Greenland if it is all covered in snow and ice? "holy shit Erik, this place is as white as can get, let's call it Greenland".
From wikipedia;
"What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years."
So when people say to me. The sky is falling, the Icecaps are melting, I say: "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you!". But once again it has all been said much better by late G.Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRPoJdlm2S4
-
Err, one rather more likely reason given for why Greenland is called Greenland is because humans have a foolish habit of trying to give nice names to unpleasant places, hoping in some way that some kind of nominative determinism will then apply and make the place seem nicer than it is. A similiar example is the decidedly wrongly named Pacific ocean which is anything BUT peaceful, given the ring of fire etc. Another example.- the cape of good hope, and so on.
-
Err, one rather more likely reason given for why Greenland is called Greenland is because humans have a foolish habit of trying to give nice names to unpleasant places, hoping in some way that some kind of nominative determinism will then apply and make the place seem nicer than it is. A similiar example is the decidedly wrongly named Pacific ocean which is anything BUT peaceful, given the ring of fire etc. Another example.- the cape of good hope, and so on.
Greenland wanted settlers, thus they named it Greenland.
Iceland did NOT want settlers, thus the name.
-
It was said tongue in cheek, it may not even have been greenland but ground/earth land. my main point is that the ice core samples demonstrates a constant change in temperature during the last 100.000 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
In other (surprising) news. This:
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
For all you global-warming-is-a-scamm-ers. What do you have to say about this?