Hal Lewis resigns from the APS in protest

scientist on the rack

Anthony Watts announces what he calls “an important moment in science history.” Professor Harold Lewis reluctantly discards his 67-year membership of the American Physical Society in protest at the global-warming-driven corruption of science (h/t val majkus).

It’s worth reflecting on the significance of this prominent resignation and the reasons he cites for offering it. Here is a sample from his letter:

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.

I predict this will prompt deeper public introspection into global warming and public policy responses to it than have hitherto been possible.

Dr Lewis specifies wrong-doing at the APS, including a secret committee that never met and the brazen ignoring of a lawful petition from the members — driven, he says, by the “trillions of dollars” made available when you believe in man-made global warming, not to mention “frequent trips to exotic islands” so long as you join the global warming club.

20
Leave a Reply

avatar
11 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
G.S. WilliamsRichard C (NZ)Mark S.Mr. XyzRichard C Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
val majkus
Guest
val majkus

Thank you for publicising this Richard; it’s a magnificent letter written by a brave man; I’ve circulated it in Australia amongst my acquaintances and sent an e mail to Quadrant Online which published Barry Brill last year; I intend sending it to a few politicians as well
My favourite quote from his letter is …
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.

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

O/T Lobbed the following bomb into this discussion and got the response below it from Dr Judith Curry (have also had some discussion with Dr David Wratt at NIWA in the same vein) : What can we learn from climate models? http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/what-can-we-learn-from-climate-models/ Richard C (NZ) | October 8, 2010 at 10:14 pm | Reply May I extend and put into words, a notion that Dr Roy Clark has previously alluded to but has not since been entertained in model uncertainty discussion. That is: WE HAVE NOT TO DATE BEEN PRESENTED WITH ACTUAL SIMULATION COMPARISONS BETWEEN COMPETING CLIMATE DRIVER HYPOTHESES AND COMBINATIONS OF SUCH. Where are the ensembles that are pitted against AGW-centric simulations? The PCMDI project that supposedly makes model inter-comparisons is a massive group-think exercise and somewhat incestuous. The IPCC’s assertion that: well, we took out CO2 forcing and ran 15 simulations on 5 different models using natural forcing only (Lean solar) with OUR RF methodology and the simulations failed to mimic 90’s warming, JUST DOES NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY. Both the IPCC’s ACO2 forced AND the naturally forced simulations, failed to mimic the 1930’s warming AND the ACO2 forced simulations… Read more »

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

Have had some very reasonable discussion with Dr David Wratt re Climate Models and natural forcing in particular. This was the latest exchange: Dear Richard I see from your second email message that since originally contacting me you have become aware of some of the material in the IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4) assessing climate simulations driven by natural forcings. Some of the matters you refer to in your 29 September email are discussed in Chapter 9 (Section 9.4.1.2) of the AR4 Working Group 1 report and illustrated in figure 9.5 of that chapter. I assume that when you discuss “the 1930s spike in temperatures” you are referring to the global temperature anomaly through roughly the period of the Second World War seen in the heavy black line of IPCC WG1 Figure 9.5. You may be aware that after the AR4 was completed Thompson and colleagues published a paper suggesting that the shape of the temperature anomaly graph through this period was influenced by changes in the dominant methods used for measuring temperatures from ships (Thompson D.W.J. et al, Nature 453, pp 646-649, 2008). In particular, for part of the war most of the… Read more »

Mr. Xyz
Guest
Mr. Xyz

MSM will try to keep this quiet just like last week’s global warming scandal.

If you aren’t familliar with the 10:10 dust up, see these videos.

While watching the first one, ask yourself if it’s sincere or if it’s a spoof.

Keep watching until you’re sure, and then watch more.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7C79DEF1EE25E880

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

“MSM will try to keep this quiet just like last week’s global warming scandal.”

Although Delingpole’s got a big headline.

US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

I ran it through BackType – 48,239 Twitter impressions

http://www.backtype.com/page/blogs.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fjamesdelingpole%2F100058265%2Fus-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life%2F

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

Reqd. Reading IMHO

“Climate science blinded by the Sun”

Robert Matthews Last Updated: Oct 10, 2010

Excerpts

“But for climate change sceptics, the real significance of the findings lies in the warning shot fired across the bows of those who believe the science of climate change is settled. If we don’t even understand the source of the world’s warmth, they argue, how can we presume to predict the future temperature of our planet? Furthermore, does it make sense to take immediate action to combat global warming, when it will take at least several solar cycles – several decades, in other words – to confirm or refute these latest findings?”

“Climate scientists may thus be about to learn what physicists have long recognised: that sometimes the more you find out, the less you know.”

http://www.thenational.ae/featured-content/channel-page/news/worldwide/middle-conversation-columnist-opinion/climate-science-blinded-by-the-sun?pageCount=2

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

I crack myself up!

At JoNova “The scientific world is fracturing”

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/the-scientific-world-is-fracturing/

Rejoinder to a passing troll (oh dear)

Recent Comments

* oh dear: Someone who is not a climate scientist r…
* oh dear: Another thing – has anyone here actually…
* Ron Kilmartin: Dear Oh Dear! “…an independent commis…
* oh dear: Hi Ron #28 You say You…
* Richard C (NZ): @ 27 Dare doubt dumb danger dear….

Mark S.
Guest
Mark S.

Will someone please explain why this past year was the hottest on record, and why Los Angeles experienced its hottest day on record last month. No global warming?

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

Classic comment from the equivalent post at JoNova.

Author: Gator
Comment:
Hey Geo! So very well said. My background is mostly in Geology and that is why I was a skeptic the first time I heard the words “global” and “warming” put together (my exact remark rhymes with fullfit). I knew long before 1988 that we are in what is known in geology circles as an “interglacial” and that it is supposed to be getting warmer. Apparently science died shortly after I graduated.

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

Time has moved on since that pronouncement Mark.

Since then the global metrics have experienced a pronounced turnaround (It happens every year) so there’s still time for the average to be dragged down by a cold NH winter (like last year).

BTW, hows the LA weather?

val majkus
Guest
val majkus

Australian MSM today reporting on Professor Lewis Physicist mocks climate ‘scam’ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/physicist-mocks-climate-scam/story-fn59niix-1225938436693
with of course a swipe from ANU climate scientist Will Steffen, who sits on the federal government’s climate change committee who said Professor Lewis had not published in the climate science or earth sciences literature. He said three investigations into the so-called climate-gate scandal had exonerated those involved and found there had been no perversion of the peer review system.

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

“who said Professor Lewis had not published in the climate science or earth sciences literature” So what! I placed a comment at JD’s Blog that addresses this; Richard Cumming says: October 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm Yes Manuel, our common sense is being insulted. You say: “I find it interesting, this notion that those of us who aren’t scientists should trust those who are. Well, up to a point.” And I say: “It is not compulsory to be a climate scientist in order to check the weather or the climate.” The AGW faction of climate science seems to think that their particular branch of science is completely unintelligible to any other field of science, engineering, medicine, law, architecture etc and the trades: electricians, builders, nurses, HVAC technicians and farmers out in the weather/climate all year round and mums taking their kids to school and that the very special nature of AGW climate science must be interpreted to us in Janet and John “trust us” fashion. But the simple fact is: that climate science is not unintelligible to every-one but them; Stephen Wilde (a Solicitor) has figured it out, and anyone with a rudimentary… Read more »

Richard C
Guest
Richard C

The folks at Jo Nova a dealing with a troll infestation at the equivalent post there.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/the-scientific-world-is-fracturing/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn

Funny business, blogging. Sometimes, you put up a post you personally think is genius and no one gives a damn. Other times, you put up a post you imagine is fairly routine – and suddenly the internet goes mental.

US physics professor: “Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life” definitely belonged in the latter category.

I claim no credit for it. All I did was print, verbatim, a resignation letter written by a distinguished US physics professor Hal Lewis to the American Physical Society. Possibly I helped give it legs by singling out the juiciest quote in the letter and putting it in the headline. That’s all. The true hero of the hour is Professor Lewis for having the courage to stick out his neck and say what so many thousands of other scientists around the world would dearly love to say too: that the global warming industry is a scam and sham.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058598/global-warming-fraud-the-tide-begins-to-turn/

val majkus
Guest
val majkus

Yes Richard I read that earlier today and loved the comment by Scotchman ‘No surprise here. Don’t know if any of you are scientists but climate change is a bit of a standing joke in the science community. Want funding for a study of, say, UK swan populations? Sorry old boy, no money. Well, in that case I would like to conduct a study into the effect of climate change on UK swan populations. Certainly, how much would you like? Trouble is it distorts the research. The scientist’s objective is to stay in a job, publish papers and run a research team. Process takes precedent over results, a bit like modern policing and medicine really.’

Sad really ‘it distorts the research’; I suppose you could get a grant and then come out with a conclusion ‘no effect on UK swan populations because no warming at the moment’ or something similar but how many more grants would you then be likely to get with that conclusion if you were that scientist

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Want funding for a study of, say, UK swan populations? Sorry old boy, no money.

Well, in that case I would like to conduct a study into the effect of climate change on UK swan populations. Certainly, how much would you like?

Deserves to be highlighted.

I remember reading that first time around but lost the link. Good that JD could dredge it up.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn

Ranks alongside

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

And

US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

G.S. Williams
Guest
G.S. Williams

to MarkS:

CORRECTION

Jim Hansen is wrong stating that 2010 was the hottest, it’s actually 1934.

val majkus
Guest
val majkus

the funniest post I’ve read about the warmest year is Do We Care if 2010 is the Warmist Year in History? Posted on December 25, 2010 by Ira Glickstein, PhD The race at that time was between 1998 and 1934. (quoting) According to the latest from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), 2010 is shaping up to be “the warmest of 131 years”, based on global data from January through November. They compare it to 2005 “2nd warmest of 131 years” and 1998 “5th warmest of 131 years”. We won’t know until the December data is in. Even then, given the level of noise in the base data and the wiggle room in the analysis, each of which is about the same magnitude as the Global Warming they are trying to quantify, we may not know for several years. If ever. GISS seems to analyze the data for decades, if necessary, to get the right answer. A case in point is the still ongoing race between 1934 and 1998 to be the hottest for US annual mean temperature…” Dr Glickstein then went through the adjustments to 1934/1998 and has a delightful graph… Read more »

Post Navigation