Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Climate Change really isn't decided
0 views
Skip to first unread message
AlleyCat
Oct 4, 2016, 6:16:38 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 10:19:53 -0700 (PDT), ronald...@yahoo.com says...
> On Tuesday, 4 October 2016 07:15:26 UTC-5, ClintonsMentallyIll wrote:
> > No, "manmade" climate change really hasnt been decided by everyone. It's been a one way debate of flawed science along with the powerful wealthy influential left
> Would you reveal some of those 'powerful influential left' you referenced?
> Thanks
Seriously? You've never heard of President OBAMA? What about Hillary
Clinton, who, along with Obama, can't keep this lie out of their speeches,
saying "climate change" is more of a threat to the world than MUSLIM
terrorism.
Here's an easy one for you, since you probably think "An Inconvenient
Truth" has ANY truth in it at all... Al Gore.
http://tinypic.com/r/2vmwntd/9
See below how all this started in the first place.
*****
35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth
https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-
intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/
:Below
UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
LOL
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
AlleyCat
Oct 5, 2016, 1:48:43 AM10/5/16
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:04:19 -0700 (PDT), ronald...@yahoo.com says...
> The 'proof' of your post relies heavily on the statement issued by Ms. Figueres
I know.
But as a good little lock-step Nazi liberal Democrat, you cherry pick over
what you DON'T want to see or read... a DIFFERENT U.N. official: Ottmar
Edenhofer
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate
official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the
environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the
ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from
2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said
Edenhofer.
--
AlleyCat
Oct 5, 2016, 1:58:34 AM10/5/16
to
> If you will go to the above listed citation at Lubbock
> On Line and read the comments readers made at the bottom of the Web
> page, it will echo my opinion.
LOL... he said opinion.
> "Yes, however, no where in those comments does Ms Figueres use the words
> "hoax" or "Capitalism".
SHE doesn't have to.
If you refuse to believe Patrick Moore, then you're just another
delusional lemming, toeing the liberal anti-capitalist line.
Grow a brain of your own, and quit following leader.
http://tinypic.com/r/2d0xmyc/9
http://tinypic.com/r/5ca7vk/8
"The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two
very distinct reasons: the first reason was because by the mid 80's
a majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things
we in the environmental movement were saying they should do."
"Now when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain
confrontational with them, and so the only way to remain anti-
establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions."
"When I left Greenpeace it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to
ban chlorine worldwide."
"Like I said: 'You guys, this is one of the elements in the periodic table
you know, I mean, I'm not sure if that's in our jurisdiction to be banning
a whole element'."
"The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world
communism failed, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political
activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-
Marxism with them, and learned to use green language in a very clever way
to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with ANTI-CAPITALISM
and anti-globalization than they do anything with ecology or science."
"The left have been slightly disoriented by the manifest failure
of socialism and indeed, moreso communism, as it was tried out, and
therefore
they still remain as ANTI-CAPITALIST as they were but they have to find
new guise for that ANTI-CAPITALISM."
"And it was a kind of amazing alliance from, uh, Margaret Thatcher on the
right through to very left wing anti-capitalist environmentalists. That
created this kind of 'momentum' behind a loony idea."
By the early 1990's man-made global warming was no longer a slightly
eccentric theory about climate, it was a full-blown political campaign...
it was attracting media attention those result: more governmental
funding.
Prior to Bush the elder, I think the level of funding for climate and
climate- related sciences was somewhere around the order of a $170
million dollars a year, which is reasonable for the size of the field...
it
jumped to two billion a year... more than a factor of ten and yeah that
changed a lot I mean lot of jobs it brought a lot of new people into it
who otherwise were not interested so you developed whole cadres of people
whose only interest in the field was that there was global warming.
If I wanted to do research on shall we say the squirrels of Sussex... what
I would do, and this is anytime from 1990 onwards... I would write my
grant application saying: "I want to investigate the nut-gathering
behaviour of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global
warming"... and that way I get my money if I forget to mention global
warming I might not get the money.
There's really no question in my mind that the large amounts of money
that have been fed into this particular rather small area of science
have distorted the overall scientific effort.
We're all competing for funds and if your field is the focus of concern
then you have that much less work rationalizing why your field should be
funded.
By the 1990's ten of billions of dollars of government funding in the US,
UK and elsewhere were being diverted into research relating to global
warming. A large portion of those funds went into building computer
models to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
But how accurate are those models?
Doctor Roy Spencer is a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's
Marshall space flights Center. He has been awarded medals for
exceptional scientific achievement from both NASA and the American
Meteorological Society.
Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them and
they have hundreds of assumptions.
All it takes as one assumption to be wrong for the forecast to be way
off.
--
> On Line and read the comments readers made at the bottom of the Web
> page, it will echo my opinion.
LOL... he said opinion.
> "Yes, however, no where in those comments does Ms Figueres use the words
> "hoax" or "Capitalism".
SHE doesn't have to.
If you refuse to believe Patrick Moore, then you're just another
delusional lemming, toeing the liberal anti-capitalist line.
Grow a brain of your own, and quit following leader.
http://tinypic.com/r/2d0xmyc/9
http://tinypic.com/r/5ca7vk/8
"The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two
very distinct reasons: the first reason was because by the mid 80's
a majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things
we in the environmental movement were saying they should do."
"Now when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain
confrontational with them, and so the only way to remain anti-
establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions."
"When I left Greenpeace it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to
ban chlorine worldwide."
"Like I said: 'You guys, this is one of the elements in the periodic table
you know, I mean, I'm not sure if that's in our jurisdiction to be banning
a whole element'."
"The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world
communism failed, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political
activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-
Marxism with them, and learned to use green language in a very clever way
to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with ANTI-CAPITALISM
and anti-globalization than they do anything with ecology or science."
"The left have been slightly disoriented by the manifest failure
of socialism and indeed, moreso communism, as it was tried out, and
therefore
they still remain as ANTI-CAPITALIST as they were but they have to find
new guise for that ANTI-CAPITALISM."
"And it was a kind of amazing alliance from, uh, Margaret Thatcher on the
right through to very left wing anti-capitalist environmentalists. That
created this kind of 'momentum' behind a loony idea."
By the early 1990's man-made global warming was no longer a slightly
eccentric theory about climate, it was a full-blown political campaign...
it was attracting media attention those result: more governmental
funding.
Prior to Bush the elder, I think the level of funding for climate and
climate- related sciences was somewhere around the order of a $170
million dollars a year, which is reasonable for the size of the field...
it
jumped to two billion a year... more than a factor of ten and yeah that
changed a lot I mean lot of jobs it brought a lot of new people into it
who otherwise were not interested so you developed whole cadres of people
whose only interest in the field was that there was global warming.
If I wanted to do research on shall we say the squirrels of Sussex... what
I would do, and this is anytime from 1990 onwards... I would write my
grant application saying: "I want to investigate the nut-gathering
behaviour of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global
warming"... and that way I get my money if I forget to mention global
warming I might not get the money.
There's really no question in my mind that the large amounts of money
that have been fed into this particular rather small area of science
have distorted the overall scientific effort.
We're all competing for funds and if your field is the focus of concern
then you have that much less work rationalizing why your field should be
funded.
By the 1990's ten of billions of dollars of government funding in the US,
UK and elsewhere were being diverted into research relating to global
warming. A large portion of those funds went into building computer
models to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
But how accurate are those models?
Doctor Roy Spencer is a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's
Marshall space flights Center. He has been awarded medals for
exceptional scientific achievement from both NASA and the American
Meteorological Society.
Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them and
they have hundreds of assumptions.
All it takes as one assumption to be wrong for the forecast to be way
off.
--
AlleyCat
Oct 5, 2016, 2:10:14 AM10/5/16
to
> it will echo my opinion.
Please... interpret THIS quote from Ms. Figueres:
The United Nations climate chief admitted on 03 February 2015 that the
primary goal of the Global Warming hoax has been the gradual progressive
destruction of Capitalism,
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given
ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development
model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press
conference in Brussels.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting
ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to
change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least
150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight
and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP
15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It
is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
Tell me, EXACTLY, what "transforming the economic development model", has
to with the THEORY of manmade climate change?
Can you DO that? Doubtful, but I'm sure you'll whine, like the bloggers...
"Ohhhh... she wasss misunderstooooood."
Riiiight.
Once again:
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.
The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit
during which the distribution of the world's resources will be
negotiated." - Ottmar Edenhofer
--
AlleyCat
Oct 5, 2016, 3:57:34 PM10/5/16
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:53:36 -0700 (PDT), ronald...@yahoo.com says...
> Thanks for the quote from Edenhofer, a prominent ECONOMIST!
LOL... it doesn't matter WHAT he IS, if he knows what he's talking about.
What makes YOU any more qualified on the subject than he?
NOTHING.
Were YOU employed by the IPCC and did YOU co-chair?
Ottmar Georg Edenhofer is a German economist dealing with CLIMATE CHANGE
POLICY, environmental and energy policy, and energy economics. Edenhofer
currently holds the professorship of the Economics of CLIMATE CHANGE at
the Technical University of Berlin.
From 2008 to 2015 he served as one of the co-chairs of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III
"Mitigation of Climate Change".
Among other functions, he is a member of the group "Climate, Energy &
Environment" of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, a
member of the Advisory Committee of the Green Growth Knowledge Platform
(GGKP) (a joint effort of the Global Green Growth Institute, the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Bank), a member of the
Forschungsforum Promoter Group Economy, chair of the Euro-CASE Energy
Platform, and a member of the German Academy of Science and Engineering
(acatech).
The whole of the IPCC isn't made up of ALL scientists either... they USE
scientists to spread the lie that man causes weather and climate to
change.
Many, if not most, of the scientists they had, disagreed and quit, but
that didn't stop them from using them as part of the "consensus".
> The consensus of scientists the world over is that MMGW is real.
Oh bloody hell... WRONNNNNNG.
ANOTHER dumb ass who believes that 97% consensus bullshit? You been hiding
UNDER your basement? That shit's been debunked for years now. I guess
you're just another mindless idiot 12 year old, who believes EVERYTHING
Obama and Clinton says, right? God help you.
http://tinyurl.com/97-Percent-Myth-Busted
If you don't believe me, take it from scientists who worked FOR the IPCC.
http://tinypic.com/m/jk7lp3/4
The IPCC made up that lie, because they KNOW people would believe it,
because ordinary people don't have the means, NOR the drive, to find out
for themselves. That's why the "consensus" of PEOPLE the world over, is
waning, when it comes to whether they think manmade global warming is real
or if it will have any impact at all.
They are finding out, surely but slowly, that temperature rise has
happened before, without ANY help from man and that the climate DOES
change... again, without any help from man.
Just because another of your hewos, OBAMA, repeats the lie over and over
and over, doesn't make it true.
MMGW is a THEORY. Man puts ONE molecule of CO² into the atmosphere per
41,666 other molecules... ONE CO² molecule per 16 molecules of ALL CO²...
6% of the total CO² output.
CO² IS BUT .04% of the atmosphere. Yes, that's right... looks a helluva
lot more puny, if you don't put it into parts per MILLION.
Every climate screecher screams bloody hell when they say 400ppm, as if
we're all going to incinerate at any moment. 400ppm isn't shit. The world
has been ice FREE before, when CO² were lower, and did NOT incinerate,
when it was TEN times higher.
Tell me something, Einstein... how was it that it got warmer... MUCH
warmer than it is now, when CO² was HALF of what it is today, if CO² is
the "driving force" behind warming?
http://i.imgur.com/ckPno2K.jpg
It's not... WARMTH is the driving force behind warmth, and WHERE do we get
our warmth from? The Sun.
http://tinypic.com/m/j9n0c7/4
CO² is a BYPRODUCT, so to speak, of warming. MORE CO² is released,
ESPECIALLY from the oceans, when it gets warmer, NOT the other way around,
like your hewo lied.
You're just a mindless idiot, who can be brainwashed by the likes of an
ENGLISH MAJOR... Al Gore.
Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965, initially majoring in English
and wrote novels but later deciding to major in government.
Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and
mathematical theories, he did NOT DO WELL in science classes in college
and avoided taking math.
His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of
the class.
So... who ya gonna believe.. REAL scientists, or Al fucking Gore?
http://tinypic.com/r/2vmwntd/9
AlleyCat
Oct 5, 2016, 5:22:47 PM10/5/16
to
AlleyCat
Oct 5, 2016, 6:31:51 PM10/5/16
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 18:03:33 -0400, Horatio Caine says...
>
> ronald...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the quote from Edenhofer, a prominent ECONOMIST! The consensus of
> > scientists the world over is that MMGW is real. And you believe one or two
> > dissenters?
>
> Republican politicians aren't allowed to believe the science supporting global
> warming
WHO said that? You?
> because it's nothing but radical leftist dogma forced on a gullible
> populace by morons who went to university and got science degrees.
And FAILED to get their doctorates, so now they blog.
alt.fan.marty.the.gay.pigboy?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2,
thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential
atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.
The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide
will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science." - Dr. William
Happer, PhD.
*****
AlleyCat
Oct 5, 2016, 8:36:16 PM10/5/16
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:12:14 -0700 (PDT), ronald...@yahoo.com says...
> LOL... it doesn't matter WHAT he IS, if he knows what he's talking
> about.
don't think he knows what's going on?
God, help you.
> What makes YOU any more qualified on the subject than he?
HIS words speak for themselves.
> Edenhofer is well educated, but apparently doesn't know his limitations.
What the FUCK do you know about him, or what he thinks? Nothing. You're
just another basement dwelling lemming, following what Obama and Clinton
say, ONLY because they're Democrats.
> I do.
Ya, we know.
> And here is nearly 200 organizations that do know their shit. TWO
> HUNDRED.
LOL... and JUST as many or more on the opposite side who do too, but...
> https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Well, surprise, surprise... half the list is schools, and they ALL NEED
government grants and funding. Boy, you is stoopit.
Typical... liberals ALWAYS name, or DON'T name, depending on how you wanna
look at it, names... just organizations. Faceless institutions, where NO
ONE can have a finger pointed at them.
Climate screechers always love to cite NASA and The NOAA... NEVER any
particular PERSON.
*****
How about naming some SCIENTISTS, moron, instead of whole organizations,
which might have MORE than a few "deniers", or do you think that just
because the organization "holds the position" that all their employees do
too?
*****
David Bellamy, botanist.
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Ph.D., owner of the business WeatherAction which makes
weather forecasts.
http://tinypic.com/r/2nqxsid/8
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences,
Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for
Urban Science and Progress at New York University
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National
Academy of Sciences
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement.
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics
Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA
Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003)
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of
Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the
Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National
University
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa,
research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and
soil science
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of
London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate
in chemistry
***********************
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural
processes.
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be
attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on
climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical
articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the
Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography
at the University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James
Cook University
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and
Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics
and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington
University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology
Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy;
emeritus professor, Princeton University
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the
University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World
Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center
for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of
Missouri
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton
University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of
Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty
member at the University of California, San Diego
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie
University and University of Colorado
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke
University
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate
science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of
Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon
State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University
of Ottawa
****************************
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the
observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director
of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at
Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth
System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville,
contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute and a Nobel laureate.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa
County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University
of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
***********************************
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of
little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United
States Department of the Interior
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State
University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation
Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research
professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940-2007), retired New Zealand MetService
Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University
of Wyoming
Reid Bryson (1920-2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine
interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural
processes:
Robert Jastrow (1925-2008), American astronomer, physicist and
cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and
William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute to
counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars
Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took
the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused
by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides
were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus
view of anthropogenic global warming. Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was
experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be
natural variation.
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923-2011), Emeritus Professor of Physics and
former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American
Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the
money flood" of government grants.
Frederick Seitz (1911-2008), solid-state physicist and former president of
the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall
Institute in 1984.
0 new messages