by Edwin Berry
The Climate Physics posting of the letter by Hal Lewis resigning from the American Physical Society predictably generated comments. Finally, came the expected comment @7 by Mr. Steve Kirsch:
“It is also worthy repeating an in-depth investigation by John Mashey who wanted to know the truth behind the petition and Hal Lewis.”
“So if you want to be objective about spreading info, spread the Hal Lewis letter, Mashey’s analysis, and let the reader decide who is really telling the truth.
“Basically, the investigation found APS was right to reject the petition. Read the full 128 page analysis and if you think it is wrong, tell us why.”
“See also Another Silly Climate Petition Exposed which references Mashey’s analysis.”
We continue the discussion of this subject here, in Climate Deception, because this subject is about Climate Deception and not about Climate Physics.
I make six comments about the John Mashey report as follows:
1. It shows “connections” between numerous climate scientists and concludes this proves their science in wrong. FACT: There is no such cause-effect relationship.
2. It assumes social science can determine whether a physical hypothesis it true or false. FACT: Mashey’s reasoning is like saying Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is false because Einstein got a divorce. Hypotheses of physics cannot be tested in the realm of social science.
3. There is nothing in the Mashey report that trumps these words by Lewis:
“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.
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.- Hal Lewis”
4. Whose money funded the Mashey report? A lot of good science could have been done with the money wasted, except for propaganda purposes, on the Mashey report.
5. Mashey claims to be able to determine the quality of work done by the scientists he reviews. When he criticizes the likes of Richard Lindzen and others, Mashey demonstrates his ignorance rather than his intelligence.
6. Mashey assumes he can determine who is qualified to judge whether the key hypotheses behind global warming are invalid. Mashey ignores the fundamental criteria of the scientific method, namely, if a prediction does not match reality then the hypothesis is wrong. Any scientist who understands the scientific method is qualified to state the global warming hypotheses are wrong.
An analogy would be a medical profession vaccine that is touted to stop a disease but instead kills 50% of those vaccinated. The general public is superbly qualified to conclude the hypothesis behind this vaccine is invalid.