William Nierenberg
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Is the Universe Expanding?: an Historical and Philosophical Perspective for Cosmologists Starting Anew
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 6-1996 Is the Universe Expanding?: An Historical and Philosophical Perspective for Cosmologists Starting Anew David A. Vlosak Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Cosmology, Relativity, and Gravity Commons Recommended Citation Vlosak, David A., "Is the Universe Expanding?: An Historical and Philosophical Perspective for Cosmologists Starting Anew" (1996). Master's Theses. 3474. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3474 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IS THEUN IVERSE EXPANDING?: AN HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR COSMOLOGISTS STAR TING ANEW by David A Vlasak A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements forthe Degree of Master of Arts Department of Philosophy Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan June 1996 IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING?: AN HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR COSMOLOGISTS STARTING ANEW David A Vlasak, M.A. Western Michigan University, 1996 This study addresses the problem of how scientists ought to go about resolving the current crisis in big bang cosmology. Although this problem can be addressed by scientists themselves at the level of their own practice, this study addresses it at the meta level by using the resources offered by philosophy of science. There are two ways to resolve the current crisis. -
Nathaniel Rich's Losing Earth and the Role of William Nierenberg And
Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth and the Role of William Nierenberg and Other Science Advisors: Why didn’t we act on climate change in the 1980s? Ed Levy The entire New York Times Magazine of August 5, 2018 was devoted to an important article by Nathaniel Rich, Losing Earth: The Decade we almost stopped climate Change. In Rich’s account from 1979 to 1989 the United States came close to “breaking our suicide pact with fossil fuels.”1 Rich shows that at the beginning of that decade a broad international consensus had developed favoring action in the form of a global treaty to curb emissions and that U.S. leadership was required and possibly forthcoming. Yet at the end of the decade it was clear that these efforts had failed. Rich sets as his primary task answering the question, “Why didn’t we act?” He does not provide a satisfactory answer. However, Rich’s informative and nuanced accounts convey well the shifting positions about climate change in the US during the decade. At the beginning it was difficult to get widespread attention, later it looked as though linking global warming to other issues such as ozone depletion and CFCs could result in action. These accounts are based on a large number of interviews and extensive research, but the story is told primarily through the eyes of two significant players, Rafe Pomerance and James Hansen, “a hyperkinetic lobbyist and a guileless atmospheric physicist who, at great personal cost, tried to warn humanity of what was coming.” Still, Rich barely addresses the central question explicitly and does not come close to providing a convincing answer. -
A General Theory of Climate Denial Peter J
A General Theory of Climate Denial Peter J. Jacques A General Theory of Climate Denial • Peter J. Jacques There is now a well-recognized right-wing counter-movement challenging the trend, attribution, impact, and civic implications of orthodox climate change science. Where do the body and spirit of this counter-movement come from? Here I will reºect on some conspicuous questions. First, why have academics, the media, and the counter-movement itself had difªculty naming the counter- movement? Second, why reject the premise of global environmental change at all? Finally, what is the result of the apparent binary choice between the ac- knowledgment of the orthodoxy and its rejection? A General Theory of Denial I will argue that climate denial is an appropriate label consistent with Lang’s “General Theory of Historical Denial.”1 Currently, there is disagreement whether climate “skeptic,” “contrarian,” and “denier” are representative terms.2 I have used the word “skeptic,” but I admit here and elsewhere that it is inappro- priate,3 because the skepticism in environmental skepticism is asymmetrical. As skeptics cast doubt on ecological science, they have an abiding faith in industrial science and technology, free enterprise, and those great institutions of Western Enlightenment.4 Further, skeptics rightfully argue that skepticism is a funda- mental sentiment of rigorous science. Ecological cynicism is then positioned as scientiªc without drawing attention to the asymmetry. Lahsen has successfully used the word “contrarian” to denote the most outspoken leaders of climate rejection, particularly credentialed physicists and climate scientists such as Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, Willie Soon, and Sallie Balliunas. -
See the Scientific Petition
May 20, 2016 Implement the Endangered Species Act Using the Best Available Science To: Secretary Sally Jewell and Secretary Penny Prtizker We, the under-signed scientists, recommend the U.S. government place species conservation policy on firmer scientific footing by following the procedure described below for using the best available science. A recent survey finds that substantial numbers of scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration believe that political influence at their agency is too high.i Further, recent species listing and delisting decisions appear misaligned with scientific understanding.ii,iii,iv,v,vi For example, in its nationwide delisting decision for gray wolves in 2013, the FWS internal review failed the best science test when reviewed by an independent peer-review panel.vii Just last year, a FWS decision not to list the wolverine ran counter to the opinions of agency and external scientists.viii We ask that the Departments of the Interior and Commerce make determinations under the Endangered Species Actix only after they make public the independent recommendations from the scientific community, based on the best available science. The best available science comes from independent scientists with relevant expertise who are able to evaluate and synthesize the available science, and adhere to standards of peer-review and full conflict-of-interest disclosure. We ask that agency scientific recommendations be developed with external review by independent scientific experts. There are several mechanisms by which this can happen; however, of greatest importance is that an independent, external, and transparent science-based process is applied consistently to both listing and delisting decisions. -
1 Census of Marine Life Participants 2000-2010
Census of Marine Life Participants 2000-2010 Raza Abidi, Dalhousie University, Canada Jo Acebes, Asia Research Center, Philippines Arturo Acero, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Shanta Nair Achuthankutty, National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, India C.T. Achuthankutty, National Institute of Oceanography, India Colleen Adam, DIVERSITAS, France Sarah Adamowicz, University of Guelph, Canada Nathan Adams, United States Helena Adão, University of Évora, Portugal Adrian Aebischer, University of Bern and Museum Fribourg, Switzerland Steven Africk, Acentech Inc, United States Vikram Agadi, National Institute Scientific Communication & Information Resources, India Yogi Agrawal, Sequoia Scientific, United States Maite Aguado, Universidad Autonóma de Madrid, Spain Anelio Aguayo-Lobo, Instituto Antarctico Chileno, Chile Paula Aguiar, University of the Azores, Portugal John Ahearn, Museum Victoria, Australia Sayyed Ahmed, Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman Shane Ahyong, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), New Zealand Jim Aiken, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, United Kingdom Cameron Ainsworth, University of British Columbia, Canada Laura Airoldi, Università di Bologna, Italy Belinda Aker, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom Dag Aksnes, University of Bergen, Norway Farid Al-Abdali, Five Oceans LLC, Sultanate of Oman Nasser Al-Azri, HMR Environmental Engineering Cunsultants, Sultanate of Oman Adnan Al-Azri, Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman Monica Albuquerque, University Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Portugal Jacqueline Alder, UNEP, Kenya Viviana Alder, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina Juan Luis Aleget, Universitat de Girona, Spain Yaroslava Alekseeva, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Vera Alexander, University of Alaska Fairbanks, United States Karen Alexander, University of New Hampshire, United States Daniel Alexandrov, European University at St. Petersburg, Russia J.R.B. -
The Physical Tourist Physics and New York City
Phys. perspect. 5 (2003) 87–121 © Birkha¨user Verlag, Basel, 2003 1422–6944/05/010087–35 The Physical Tourist Physics and New York City Benjamin Bederson* I discuss the contributions of physicists who have lived and worked in New York City within the context of the high schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions with which they were and are associated. I close with a walking tour of major sites of interest in Manhattan. Key words: Thomas A. Edison; Nikola Tesla; Michael I. Pupin; Hall of Fame for GreatAmericans;AlbertEinstein;OttoStern;HenryGoldman;J.RobertOppenheimer; Richard P. Feynman; Julian Schwinger; Isidor I. Rabi; Bronx High School of Science; StuyvesantHighSchool;TownsendHarrisHighSchool;NewYorkAcademyofSciences; Andrei Sakharov; Fordham University; Victor F. Hess; Cooper Union; Peter Cooper; City University of New York; City College; Brooklyn College; Melba Phillips; Hunter College; Rosalyn Yalow; Queens College; Lehman College; New York University; Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences; Samuel F.B. Morse; John W. Draper; Columbia University; Polytechnic University; Manhattan Project; American Museum of Natural History; Rockefeller University; New York Public Library. Introduction When I was approached by the editors of Physics in Perspecti6e to prepare an article on New York City for The Physical Tourist section, I was happy to do so. I have been a New Yorker all my life, except for short-term stays elsewhere on sabbatical leaves and other visits. My professional life developed in New York, and I married and raised my family in New York and its environs. Accordingly, writing such an article seemed a natural thing to do. About halfway through its preparation, however, the attack on the World Trade Center took place. -
Seventy Years of Exploration in Oceanography: a Prolonged
Seventy Years of Exploration in Oceanography Hans von Storch Klaus Hasselmann Seventy Years of Exploration in Oceanography A Prolonged Weekend Discussion with Walter Munk 123 Hans von Storch Klaus Hasselmann Institute of Coastal Research Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie GKSS Research Center Bundesstraße 55 Geesthacht 20146 Hamburg Germany Germany Center of Excellence CLISAP [email protected] University of Hamburg Germany [email protected] ISBN 978-3-642-12086-2 e-ISBN 978-3-642-12087-9 DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-12087-9 Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2010922341 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Typesetting and production: le-tex publishing services GmbH, Leipzig, Germany Cover design: WMXDesign GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Foreword – Carl Wunsch Many scientists are impatient with, and uninterested in, the history of their subject – and young scientists are universally urged to focus on what is not understood – to “exercise some imagination” – to look forward and not back. -
National Academy of Sciences July 1, 1979 Officers
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES JULY 1, 1979 OFFICERS Term expires President-PHILIP HANDLER June 30, 1981 Vice-President-SAUNDERS MAC LANE June 30, 1981 Home Secretary-BRYCE CRAWFORD,JR. June 30, 1983 Foreign Secretary-THOMAS F. MALONE June 30, 1982 Treasurer-E. R. PIORE June 30, 1980 Executive Officer Comptroller Robert M. White David Williams COUNCIL Abelson, Philip H. (1981) Markert,C. L. (1980) Berg, Paul (1982) Nierenberg,William A. (1982) Berliner, Robert W. (1981) Piore, E. R. (1980) Bing, R. H. (1980) Ranney, H. M. (1980) Crawford,Bryce, Jr. (1983) Simon, Herbert A. (1981) Friedman, Herbert (1982) Solow, R. M. (1980) Handler, Philip (1981) Thomas, Lewis (1982) Mac Lane, Saunders (1981) Townes, Charles H. (1981) Malone, Thomas F. (1982) Downloaded by guest on September 30, 2021 SECTIONS The Academyis divided into the followingSections, to which membersare assigned at their own choice: (11) Mathematics (31) Engineering (12) Astronomy (32) Applied Biology (13) Physics (33) Applied Physical and (14) Chemistry Mathematical Sciences (15) Geology (41) Medical Genetics Hema- (16) Geophysics tology, and Oncology (21) Biochemistry (42) Medical Physiology, En- (22) Cellularand Develop- docrinology,and Me- mental Biology tabolism (23) Physiological and Phar- (43) Medical Microbiology macologicalSciences and Immunology (24) Neurobiology (51) Anthropology (25) Botany (52) Psychology (26) Genetics (53) Social and Political Sci- (27) Population Biology, Evo- ences lution, and Ecology (54) Economic Sciences In the alphabetical list of members,the numbersin parentheses, followingyear of election, indicate the respective Class and Section of the member. CLASSES The members of Sections are grouped in the following Classes: I. Physical and Mathematical Sciences (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). -
UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The new prophet : Harold C. Urey, scientist, atheist, and defender of religion Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3j80v92j Author Shindell, Matthew Benjamin Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The New Prophet: Harold C. Urey, Scientist, Atheist, and Defender of Religion A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History (Science Studies) by Matthew Benjamin Shindell Committee in charge: Professor Naomi Oreskes, Chair Professor Robert Edelman Professor Martha Lampland Professor Charles Thorpe Professor Robert Westman 2011 Copyright Matthew Benjamin Shindell, 2011 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Matthew Benjamin Shindell is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2011 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………………...... iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………. iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………. -
A Cultural Analysis of a Physicist ''Trio'' Supporting the Backlash Against
ARTICLE IN PRESS Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 204–219 www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming Myanna Lahsenà Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado and Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Epaciais (INPE), Av. dos Astronautas, 1758, Sa˜o Jose´ dos Campos, SP 12227-010 Brazil Received 18 March 2007; received in revised form 5 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007 Abstract This paper identifies cultural and historical dimensions that structure US climate science politics. It explores why a key subset of scientists—the physicist founders and leaders of the influential George C. Marshall Institute—chose to lend their scientific authority to this movement which continues to powerfully shape US climate policy. The paper suggests that these physicists joined the environmental backlash to stem changing tides in science and society, and to defend their preferred understandings of science, modernity, and of themselves as a physicist elite—understandings challenged by on-going transformations encapsulated by the widespread concern about human-induced climate change. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Anti-environmental movement; Human dimensions research; Climate change; Controversy; United States; George C. Marshall Institute 1. Introduction change itself, what he termed a ‘‘strong theory of culture.’’ Arguing that the essential role of science in our present age Human Dimensions Research in the area of global only can be fully understood through examination of environmental change tends to integrate a limited con- individuals’ relationships with each other and with ‘‘mean- ceptualization of culture. -
Walter Heinrich Munk
WALTER HEINRICH MUNK 19 october 1917 . 8 february 2019 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY VOL. 163, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2019 biographical memoirs alter Heinrich Munk was a brilliant scholar and scientist who was considered one of the greatest oceanographers of W his time. He was born in Vienna, Austria in 1917 as the Austro-Hungarian Empire was declining and just before the death of one of its great artists, Gustav Klimt. Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler, who later changed her name to Hedy Lamarr to accommodate her film career, was one of Walter’s childhood friends.1 Walter’s mother, Rega Brunner,2 the daughter of a wealthy Jewish banker, divorced Walter’s father in 1927 and married Dr. Rudolf Engelsberg in 1928. By age 14, Walter apparently had not distinguished himself in his school studies and announced that he intended to become a ski instructor. Walter later claimed that it was this that caused his mother to send him to work at a family bank in New York. The validity of this claim should be tempered by the political turmoil in Germany and its proximity to Austria. In any case, Walter left Vienna in 1932. In New York, he attended Silver Bay Preparatory School for Boys on Lake George and then became a lowly employee in the Cassel Bank, which was associated with the family’s Brunner Bank in New York. In the meantime, Walter restarted his education at Columbia’s Extension School. He greatly disliked the work at the bank and apparently made a number of mistakes, which didn’t endear him to the owners of the Cassel Bank. -
Walter Munk and JASON By
Walter Munk and JASON by Richard L. Garwin IBM Fellow Emeritus IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 www.fas.org/RLG/ (The “Garwin Archive”) Search it with, e.g., [site:fas.org/RLG/ “Walter Munk”] Email: [email protected] Walter Munk Legacy Symposium Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla, CA October 17, 2019 _10/17/19_ Walter Munk and JASON.docx 1 I met Walter Munk probably in 1962, when I briefed the JASON group at its second summer study. But our paths had crossed much earlier, anonymously to be sure, when Walter survived the first thermonuclear explosion, on a small raft in the vast Pacific Ocean. This was the 10-megaton MIKE test on Enewetak Atoll, in the Marshall Islands. In a few minutes we’ll hear Walter’s account of the experience1. I came to know Walter well when I joined JASON in 1966, and I was able to benefit from his insights and experience. Since about 1957 I had worked almost half time with the President’s Science Advisor Committee (PSAC), created late that year by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Although not yet a PSAC member, I had been asked to chair its Military Aircraft Panel and its AntiSubmarine Warfare Panel. It was in that latter context that I appreciated Walter as a scientist—energetic, imaginative, bold, courageous, and thorough. We’ll see Walter later in this talk, commenting on JASON, but first I list the JASON reports which he authored, usually with others who drew on and extended Walter’s long experience and deep understanding of the oceans and the science and phenomenology involved.