67 years of street cred - climate dood quits, sez its all a big load!

[skipbelt 0]

i like my suggestion better , but as it turns out , you knew what you were talking about the whole time. i wonder if you'll get an apology , of sorts...

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

i like my suggestion better , but as it turns out , you knew what you were talking about the whole time. i wonder if you'll get an apology , of sorts...

Bahaahahahahahahha

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Could you cite where that is being confirmed by their management?

From last November when Lewis, et al, petitioned to have the APS change its statement concerning AGW.
http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/2009/11/10/aps-council-overwhelmingly-rejects-proposal-to-replace-societys-current-climate-change-statement/

Lewis, et al, have been in a pissing contest with the APS ever since their proposal was rejected.

Here, from that same time period, is a decent analysis of the Lewis petition.
http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009%20science%20bypass%20v3%200.pdf

This includes an analysis of the names of the people that signed the petition.

So what do we have? About 200 guys in an organization of 47,000 petition the APS to change its official policy statement back in November. Some of the guys in that group of 200 are unquestionably on the payroll of energy companies that pay them money to be professional deniers in the Global Climate Change war of disinformation. The APS says, no. Pissing match ensues. The head of the petitioners makes a very public letter of resignation. The right wing media gobble it up like candy and copy and paste THAT all over the internet.

Do they post any of the APS analysis of the petition? No. Absolutely not. Their strategy is simply to copy and paste it so much it literally floods all search engines.

Hell, Turtle can't even find a single reference to it after 20 minutes of searching!

Good job right wing blogoshpere! You've essentially stuck the banana in the tailpipe of Google.

Does it change any of the actual facts? No. It's still just a pissing contest between about 200 guys (a large number of which are on big oil payrolls) and 47,000 other scientists that say no.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....It's essentially the kind of pissing contest we see in the USPA when a small but vocal minority decide it should be run one way and the other 99.5% of it says no. Then somebody gets huffy and writes a public letter of resignation as if that will actually change things.

So, those public letters are always wrong?

Nope, I'm saying that the vast majority of times they're sour grapes and don't mean a damn thing. The only real purpose they serve is to burn the bridge.

The same could be said of whistleblowers, protestors, etc. A whistleblower makes noise over a problem and disparate treatment.

The issue is that it is procedural. He points to specific problem with procedure - not following the rules. Treat things and people the same way and form a conclusion that is supportable. Without a procedure to reach that conclusion, the conclusion is arbitrary. It's showing your work - coming up with the correct answer is not desirable if I simply pulled a Cheney (took a shot at it.)

I'd rather get the wrong result the right way then the right result the wrong way. It is the honest approach.

UC Santa Barbara, class of 1996.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Could you cite where that is being confirmed by their management?

From last November when Lewis, et al, petitioned to have the APS change its statement concerning AGW.
http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/2009/11/10/aps-council-overwhelmingly-rejects-proposal-to-replace-societys-current-climate-change-statement/

Lewis, et al, have been in a pissing contest with the APS ever since their proposal was rejected.

Here, from that same time period, is a decent analysis of the Lewis petition.
http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009%20science%20bypass%20v3%200.pdf

This includes an analysis of the names of the people that signed the petition.

That reading will have to wait until tomorrow.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I'd rather get the wrong result the right way then the right result the wrong way. It is the honest approach.

The problem is that scruples cost A LOT . . um, I mean The TRUTH costs A LOT!
What truth do you want, i can get it for you.

You need a 100billiondollar a year buisness opportunity? No problem - We'll call it - Climate Change! You see the genius of it? Just let them try to prove that Climates aren't supposed to change! We'll scare the hell out of them and watch the dollars and funding roll right in.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skipbelt 0]

who can disagree with global climate change , aka changing of seasons ? i personally disagree with winter , except for the Christmas part , and maybe new years , but that's in the northern hemisphere . otherwise i VOCIFEROUSLY disagree with winter !

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

who can disagree with global climate change , aka changing of seasons ? i personally disagree with winter , except for the Christmas part , and maybe new years , but that's in the northern hemisphere . otherwise i VOCIFEROUSLY disagree with winter !

You have a hard time understanding the concept of "climate", don't you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You have a hard time understanding the concept of "climate", don't you?

I am not nearly so disappointed in people's lack of knowledge of the dufference as I used to be. Since every damned heat wave, cold snap, rain event, etc., is causally linked to AGW, you just cannot tell. You've got climateprogress.org and the meduia just getting stuff wrong because, well, it sells...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lurch 0]

"Every megawatt of wind power needs to have a matching megawatt of that consists of coal, gas, or nuke power.

This is a fact you cant change"

Not true.

Check out Beacon Power. They are developing flywheel-based energy storage utility substations on a heavy-industrial scale. They have taken the concept from a NASA prototype pipedream, made a practical, useful, doable technology out of it and built a prototype substation in Massachusetts which is already plugged into the grid and operating.
I've toured the facility and its for real. They build flywheels in the form of huge 2500-lb cylinders of carbon fiber, spin them in vacuum chambers on frictionless magnetic bearings, put em in concrete silos buried in the ground in case the flywheel lets go. Each stores 25kwh, (or, say, 100kw for 15 minutes of spindown time) and they just gang em together in tens and twenties like gigantic kinetic batteries.

While its still small they're marketing the technology for grid frequency stabilization, and they're building the first utility scale 20MW substation in NY state. On an even larger scale you could build a 500 MW or even 1-2 GW storage station, combine it with a wind/solar farm and have a viable replacement for burning dinosaurs.
I know all this because I spent a few hours hanging out in that facility talking to their people and if I land the job I'll be working with these people very soon, hopefully. Their one of a kind demo facility happens to be a few miles from my door. Coolest thing I have ever seen.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

Every megawatt of wind power needs to have a matching megawatt of that consists of coal, gas, or nuke power.

This is a fact you cant change

Can you explain this? Is it to cover shortfalls during no-wind days?

[lurch 0]

I can answer that for him: Yes. Right now wind power is nearly useless for that reason. If you deleted all fossil and nuke plants and ran the entire grid on wind, it'd be flickering like a continent-sized candle because every time the wind dies off so does the juice, and there is... there WAS no way to store power on a scale big enough to power cities. Same goes for solar. You can't have the power grid going limpdicked every time a cloud crosses the sun or a nice weeklong weather system passes through.

Batteries are horribly inefficient and wear out in just a few cycles plus they're insanely expensive per kilowatt and have a tendency to explode rather violently if and when they go bad. Imagine the spontaneous combustion/exploding laptop battery problem happening on a scale approximately 200 million times larger in just one small powerplant. The expansion involved with unleashing a few megawatts of stored chemical energy makes containment difficult and iffy.

However the new flywheel tech has effectively no cycle limit. Their current estimates put the lifespan of any given flywheel of roughly 20 years. There is very little comparative hazard- if a flywheel develops a crack and goes boom, all that'll happen is you'll feel a godalmighty THUMP underfoot, you get a cloud of redhot carbon out the containment vents and one wrecked silo. (this is because you're talking about over 1 ton of carbon fiber spinning at 16,000 rpm. The outer edge of the flywheel is travelling in a circle at just over mach 2 so if it goes, all the energy is released in an instant and its like a tiny little plane crash in a box. There aren't even any pieces left... the flywheel turns to dust in a microsecond.) The rest of the plant will keep right on happily spinning and dumping juice back into the grid every time the wind slows down. Neat trick, eh? As failure modes go, it beats the crap out of having your nuke plant go Chernobyl on you in your backyard. Hell, the local wildlife would barely even notice beyond startling the shit out of nearby birds.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Does it change any of the actual facts? No. It's still just a pissing contest between about 200 guys (a large number of which are on big oil payrolls) and 47,000 other scientists that say no.

You still haven't shown us which of these "large number" of people are on the big oil payroll? Anyone can make up "facts".






______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[quade 4]

Quote

You still haven't shown us which of these "large number" of people are on the big oil payroll? Anyone can make up "facts".

I did. There is a link provided to a report that shows which petitioners are linked to which specific big oil lobbying group. The link is in the post to which you just replied to. I think that speaks volumes to how much you're paying attention.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Every megawatt of wind power needs to have a matching megawatt of that consists of coal, gas, or nuke power.

This is a fact you cant change

Can you explain this? Is it to cover shortfalls during no-wind days?

Yes

Until storage or something comes along wind can not be expected to be a base load supplier

What ever is being developed can not yet meet this need

Not yet anyway

And again
The tax incentives end Jan 1 (unless congress changes that) and at this point, it is expected that wind construction will nearly come to a halt. (the wind energy lobby is working very hard to get congress to act)

Add this to two other facts

One
State utility boards are being surprised by the rate increase request asked for to cover the construction and operations of these machines. The are not cheap to build (of course neither is coal or others) and they are not cheap to operate.
Two
With out the tax incentives corps will not invest in them because they can not get a decent return on investment. They really do not make money

They are (and now become a were) political reality that forced companies to build them. It is the environment (as false one IMO) created by the warmists that pushed this questionable resource investment.

Now add to this the WI lawsuit filed to remove a 160 of these things because of the noise (they are incredibly loud).

They are falling out of favor very quickly

Would you invest in them now?

I would not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

"Every megawatt of wind power needs to have a matching megawatt of that consists of coal, gas, or nuke power.

This is a fact you cant change"

Not true.

Check out Beacon Power. They are developing flywheel-based energy storage utility substations on a heavy-industrial scale. They have taken the concept from a NASA prototype pipedream, made a practical, useful, doable technology out of it and built a prototype substation in Massachusetts which is already plugged into the grid and operating.
I've toured the facility and its for real. They build flywheels in the form of huge 2500-lb cylinders of carbon fiber, spin them in vacuum chambers on frictionless magnetic bearings, put em in concrete silos buried in the ground in case the flywheel lets go. Each stores 25kwh, (or, say, 100kw for 15 minutes of spindown time) and they just gang em together in tens and twenties like gigantic kinetic batteries.

While its still small they're marketing the technology for grid frequency stabilization, and they're building the first utility scale 20MW substation in NY state. On an even larger scale you could build a 500 MW or even 1-2 GW storage station, combine it with a wind/solar farm and have a viable replacement for burning dinosaurs.
I know all this because I spent a few hours hanging out in that facility talking to their people and if I land the job I'll be working with these people very soon, hopefully. Their one of a kind demo facility happens to be a few miles from my door. Coolest thing I have ever seen.
-B

So, could you give me an idea of the size one of these would have to be to cover, oh, (lets do a small one) a 60 megawatt gas or coal plant?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skipbelt 0]

i have a "climate " control heat pump !

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There is a link provided to a report that shows which petitioners are linked to which specific big oil lobbying group.

Okay, Paul. This is the shame of what amounts to modern smear politics. Was the scientist linked to the group because of the scientist's viewpoints or was the scientist linked to the group, which changed the scientist's viewpoints?

EVERY scientist will be paid by somebody. One can find links to anything. The fact that some scientists had research funded by oil groups is only relevant when there is a concerted effort to ensure that competing science is destroyed.
"Hey, here's some science that shows something different."
"You've gotten funding from Atlantic Richfield."
"So what?"
"You can't be trusted and will be ignored."

When you take a look at the reports generated from the East Anglia CRU hack incident, the reports absolved the climate scientists of any issues of bad science - to the extent they were investigated. However, each and every report scathed the climate science community for their own clique subculture.

Paul - the message that I am hearing is that you believe that the messenger is far more important than the message. "200 scientists have received funding from oil companies. Oil companies are bad. Therefore, the point the scientists make is invalid."

I'd be interested in hearing your response to the SUBSTANCE of his letter, rather than on the speaker. You have stated a textbook ad hominum - specifically the association fallacy.

This is all too common. (Note - Professor Lewis himself attacked the organizational leadership and insinuating the reasons for what he found to be it's malfeasance. To Lewis's credit he said what he was doing and kept it a separate line of argument).

Aside: the Eisenhower speech that was referenced refers to the famous speech that stated:

Quote

... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence...by the military-industrial complex.... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together

Just after he said that, he stated the following:

Quote

... [In] the technological revolution during recent decades ... research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ...


... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. ... we must ... be alert to the ... danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite

I emphasized the point that professor was making - that the "scientific technological elite" control who gets the money. They won't fund ideas that are unpopular (what politician or bureacrat wants to fund something that says either: (a) something isn't happening (that would be wasteful); or (b) what we thought was happening wasn't (we've wasted all our previous money)? Funding therefore is controlled by the proponents of the existing paradigm.

Opposing funding is only provided by private enterprise with sufficient dollars to support it and who have an interest in the outcome. It should not affect the science itself. Either the science is valid or it is not valid.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skipbelt 0]

i'm not sure i like the climate of this thread , this is where i could really get behind climate change !

[Amazon 7]

Quote

i have a "climate " control heat pump !

Quote

i'm not sure i like the climate of this thread , this is where i could really get behind climate change !

do we really need to know any more about the sexual proclivities of the right wing posters here???

[quade 4]

Quote

This is all too common. (Note - Professor Lewis himself attacked the organizational leadership and insinuating the reasons for what he found to be it's malfeasance. To Lewis's credit he said what he was doing and kept it a separate line of argument).

Yes, that's precisely what the letter from Lewis implies.

The problem as I see it is the 200 against the 47,000. I don't care what issue you have or statement you want to make on any topic; it's pretty much a miracle to get the rate of descent down to 0.5%.

Yet, these petitioners still want to have a pissing contest and grab media headlines with a very public letter of resignation . . . why? Why didn't they resign LAST November when this all went down?

Hmmm, it's October. They've managed to flood the blogoshpere with the letter and whip up more denier fodder for the elections in just a couple of weeks.

Isn't that surprising?

No. It's business as usual bullshit pure and simple.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

i have a "climate " control heat pump !

Quote

i'm not sure i like the climate of this thread , this is where i could really get behind climate change !

do we really need to know any more about the sexual proclivities of the right wing posters here???

Just like you claim to?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lurch 0]

Not all that big, actually. A few acres. Smaller than the footprint of the gas or coal plant it is replacing, and MUCH smaller than the scale of the destroyed terrain required to stripmine that coal.

Plus which if you build it on a large scale and integrate these things into the solar or wind farm it serves you can do a distributed version with a couple flywheel silos living at the base of each wind tower, or an array of them underneath the solar collectors in a solar plant using the otherwise wasted space there. Each silo once completed is nothing but a 10-foot circular concrete cap sticking maybe 2 feet out of the ground and one small support structure for the control room, the version I saw had the control room built into a totally anonymous-looking white cargo container just sitting on the ground.

Step inside and its packed full of rectifier and power management gear and an array of flatscreens that looked like the dashboard for the Starship Enterprise monitoring flywheel status... RPM, axis drift, power factor, whether or not its currently dumping power or spinning back up. Its actually a rather small, unobtrusive and tidy technology. Its also very quiet. The flywheels themselves do not waste energy making any noise, they're completely silent, the single loudest part of the whole thing was the fans cooling the power handling equipment.

This is not a distant future technology. If the first full scale version proves out well there could be a 200-500 MW version within 10 years and gigawatts worth of it within 15. Then the only limit is how fast can you scale up the facilities needed to build these things. They could be very widespread within 15-20 years easily I should think, once they finish working out an efficient way of mass-producing them. And compared with the cost of a single massive nuke plant or coal plant these things are dirt cheap to make. The plant they're building now is being backed by the Department of Energy and the Massachusetts government and they are quite serious about making this happen.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not all that big, actually. A few acres. Smaller than the footprint of the gas or coal plant it is replacing, and MUCH smaller than the scale of the destroyed terrain required to stripmine that coal.

Plus which if you build it on a large scale and integrate these things into the solar or wind farm it serves you can do a distributed version with a couple flywheel silos living at the base of each wind tower, or an array of them underneath the solar collectors in a solar plant using the otherwise wasted space there. Each silo once completed is nothing but a 10-foot circular concrete cap sticking maybe 2 feet out of the ground and one small support structure for the control room, the version I saw had the control room built into a totally anonymous-looking white cargo container just sitting on the ground.

Step inside and its packed full of rectifier and power management gear and an array of flatscreens that looked like the dashboard for the Starship Enterprise monitoring flywheel status... RPM, axis drift, power factor, whether or not its currently dumping power or spinning back up. Its actually a rather small, unobtrusive and tidy technology. Its also very quiet. The flywheels themselves do not waste energy making any noise, they're completely silent, the single loudest part of the whole thing was the fans cooling the power handling equipment.

This is not a distant future technology. If the first full scale version proves out well there could be a 200-500 MW version within 10 years and gigawatts worth of it within 15. Then the only limit is how fast can you scale up the facilities needed to build these things. They could be very widespread within 15-20 years easily I should think, once they finish working out an efficient way of mass-producing them. And compared with the cost of a single massive nuke plant or coal plant these things are dirt cheap to make. The plant they're building now is being backed by the Department of Energy and the Massachusetts government and they are quite serious about making this happen.
-B

and with no power available to recharge it
How long will it last? (providing power to the grid) And I am talking a full 60 meg

I dont think many here understand that all generators (electric generator companies on the grid) are required to keep a minimum percentage of their available generators on line as spinning reserves. A plant can drop today and you and I will nearly every time not know it (from a consumers stand point)

A major portion of a transmission line can drop and you and I will not know it but, if the spinning reserves are not there we will know it

Also, a wind generator (at least the ones built where I live) will not produce energy unless they are connected to a live electrical grid. Dead collector system and these wind generators are worthless. They can not provide their own exciter voltage

I am interested in this plant you talk about
Have link so I can learn more?

But now I am very skeptical of large power applications available by this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The problem as I see it is the 200 against the 47,000.

You either did not read the letter or did not digest it.

Quote

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,

The 200 signatures is required by the APS rules to petition for the creation of a topical group. The signatures were collected without access to the membership list. "We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution,"

Then:

Quote

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.

Think of a ballot initiative in California that requires 400k signatures to be placed on the ballot - out of the roughly 35 million people who live here. Imagine if 450k signatures were received for a ballot initiative and then were not acted upon because the powers-that-be did not like the proposal, but instead pulled a voter list and asked whether people would approve a ballot initiative for something - though they won't say what - instead of putting it to a vote.

That's the procedural issue that the professor discussed, and he laid it out.

Quote

Why didn't they resign LAST November when this all went down?

You didn't read it. He explains EXACTLY what happened.

Quote

About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership.

So we are looking at roughly September-November 2009 when the e-mail was sent.

Quote

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.)

The original statement was released in November, 2007 - more than a year before the big election could occur. (Why didn't he release this in October, 2008? If electioneering was his goal, then the time to really hit was two years ago, Paul.)

On July 22, 2008, the APS reaffirmed it's position

Quote

“APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange08.cfm

See? It would have been really topical if it was merely an electioneering corporate plant to do this.

November 10, 2009:

Quote

The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.

The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members. The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society’s current statement. The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition.

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.cfm

So the rejected it then, but "it requested that the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) examine the statement for possible improvements in clarity and tone."

Climate Gate broke in November, 2009. So we see a timeline forming.

ubsequent to ClimateGate,

Quote

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

So, Paul, we see he is working at exhausting all rememdies. He didn't just fucking resign because he didn't like it. He and some others tried to do what the APS bylaws said to do. What happened?

Quote

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.

In April, 2010, the Council voted to attach a 743 word commentary to the statement. http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

So, Paul, seeing this, do you think he should have just resigned a year ago? Or would you be criticizing his resignation on the basis of his looniness?

Thus far, he's had plenty of chances to resign. But instead, he and others worked with the rules of the system as they were laid out.

After running into brick walls, Professor Lewis resigned.

Notably, the APS released a statement yesterday.
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

In the statement, it denied that its actions were motivated by financial opportunities.

Ironically, it did not respond to any specifics with relation to the other charges regarding its alleged failure to follow the rules. Instead, APS stated that "it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue."

It did NOT say that it followed its rules and procedures - which is EXACTLY what Lewis accused it of doing.

So, Paul - THAT is why he didn't resign in November, 2007. Or November, 2009. He and others spent the better part of three years working a system that shut the door, as he alleges, contrary to the rules.

Paul - if ANY of what he said is true (and APS did not dispute the FACTUAL allegations that he made) then it's fucked up. The timeline that I provided casts serious doubts on the validity of the substance of your ad hominem. Instead, it shows how a guy working to try to do things the way the rules say to do it is hosed.

Then people attack the guy and impugn his motivations and timing. The timeline of events shows that your attack was without merit. He was trying to do things well AFTER you said he should have resigned, and the documents support it. Had he wanted to make election hay, he would have spoken out on October 08.

I'm disgusted by this partisan attack shit from all sides. It's not about ideas. It's not about the free exchange and discussion.

And it SURE AS SHIT is NOT about equal application of standards and rules. It's all about "I disagree with this guy's beliefs so he deserves to be hosed. And when we hose him, we'll attack him even more no matter how he reacts."

If the tables were turned, Paul, you'd be infuriated. As would I. Because I prefer to stand on the side of obeying the rules. I think that the UNPOPULAR should be protected. Everybody is up in arms about childhood bullying. Yeah. Such bullying is actively cheered on political topics.

In this, you, Paul, are an active participant. A guy gets wronged. He quits and complains publicly about it. And you join the parade and kick him even more.

It's bullshit. Every fucking side does it. "They're terrorists. Let em rot." Why go with facts and find out a guy might have a legitimate complaint. He's a denier wacko and therefore deserves whatever he gets.

I expect this behavior from plenty of people. I expect more from you, Paul. What you alleged was wrong. It was outright wrong. Proveably wrong. Because ad hominem was more important that actually identifying the guy's complaint.

My wife is hotter than your wife.