The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
[…]
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. 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.
Read the rest for his reasons. And then there’s this reply of sorts. On the other hand.
If “science” has become this corrupt, then we are truly fucked. I just don’t know what to believe anymore. If there is money backing it, suspicion follows, and rightly so.
I know one professor that will be getting a visit by the Green Mafia.
Quixotic, “a romantic disregard for money”. http://goo.gl/eHmI
Hmmm. Does he give names, dates, counter theory/facts or just a nay sayer. Its been a month or more since I consciously decided to stop being agnostic and start being a AGW’er so I will read the links and do the Google.
All starting with: when a consensus is formed, the continuous fallout of individuals is all part of the process: SCIENCE is about disagreeing===BUT====finally reaching a consensus. Thats all there is in a meaningless impossible to “prove” anything universe.
Hard on those dogs, Ma.
Well, the main link is pure BS. No Science. No facts. All process oriented political crap within the APS.
You do know old guys get cranky and lose their minds while crapping in their pants and everything else? Scientists too.
So far. I’d think even a worn out scientist dipping in and out of Alzheimers would ground his opinions and criticisms in the science of hard facts and not diatribe?
Thats hard on the dogs, Ma.
On to the second link.
God I feel good when my quick read of a (once) highly qualified scientist’s resignation letter actually agrees with a real qualified scientist in the field under discussion. Makes me feel warm all over:
“The letter is devoid of any actual critique of climate science, but here are some of Lewis’s amazingly uninformed statements on the subject: /// Uncle Dave: why do you say “reply of sorts?” Are you a denier tool?
On to the last link. Its looking like the move off agnosticism was intuitively correct.
And, “on the other hand” we have:
“Professor Hal Lewis is not an irrelevant, senile, old fool” /// Ha, ha. My first thought: Yes he is. Then: The link doth protest too much.
but then I read the rest of the link and its all off topic about some guy named Connolly: Total Fail.
Its people and arguments like this that turned me from agnosticism to going with the consensus.
“I have facts and figures, experiements and theories, observations and tests to back up my position, but the dog ate my briefcase.”
I’m embarrassed for my species: Silly Hoomans. But on this as so many other issues, its really: Silly Americans.
This guy is old! Don’t trust anyone over 30!
The reply “of sorts” is shameful. The implication is that old people can’t think and so are irrelevant. Also implied is that no scientist not deeply involved in climate science can read a graph or evaluate a study’s methodology.
poop.
Always open to new facts and re-evaluations: the guy does refer to “Climate Gate Documents” and a book by Montford. If these cites actually do lay out the scientific theory against AGW then indeed there is no need for Hal ((I can’t let you do that Dave)) Lewis to list them again. Thats the thing when dealing with actual “experts”==their context is totally different than ours.
Seems to me the Climate Gate criticisms were dismissed fairly quickly?? Same Climate Gate I am thinking about or a different one? All part of the Trillion Dollar Conspiracy tearing down the once giants with rogue waves or douche bags?
Ha ha. I like books though. Lets see how much wiki will let me read.
Animbus==that certainly is a very limited/skewed reading of the rejoinder. Yes, it is snarky that way==but the complaint is the just the OPPOSITE of what you say==that Lewis did not read charts or complain of the methodology===unless that is all subsumed in the Climate Gate papers. Did you read those?
In the main, the rejoinder HIGHLIGHTS the clearly observable fact that Lewis does not counter science with science but rather science with mere assertion.
Read it again Animby. You can do better.
@bobbo His main points are:
1) Scientific process (experiments, data, theories, peer review, publications, funding…) is corrupt vs. AGW. Particularly in APS, organization in which he had quite a leading role: monies and professional support were given on political basis vs. on the merits of scientific process.
2) Part where he speaks with disgust about AGW data and theories. His letter was to APS where most (if not all) are aware of the crooked science involved, hence no links. But everyone of us in that organization knows the volumes of “research” for which we would at least lose our jobs in any other field. I’ll state the worse in each category, you do Googling:
-Flawed experiments: best example 1990’s temperature data for Siberia. No funding for science in ex-USSR so “measurements” for decade long were records of month worth of late Summer data in Siberia repeated year-round. Every “climate scientist” in the World used this data for more than a decade without proper checking – because it helps AGW hype. No one wonders about total oddity (they still had snow there in Winters…). Even when caught: some papers still cite and use those flawed results! Today.
-Flawed data processing: NOAA measured painstakingly temperature increase since 1960’s. Measured increase: 0.1C . Published increase: 0.5C. Difference: literally FUDGE FACTOR. I process experimental data. Fudge factor goes with territory. But if it reaches 10% my data is junk and work is worthless. NOAA fudge factor: 400%.
-Flawed computer modeling: Until three years ago climate scientists used infinite deep atmosphere in their climate models. It took loud Physicist outside their field to raise issue with that and for models to change. You judge how sane is infinite approximation for thin shell of 60 miles around the Earth … Again, many climatologists still cite and use results of the old modeling as if OK (well it was “peer reviewed”).
-Flawed theories: climatologists still assume that CO2 in Earth atmosphere is “greenhouse” gas, assuming that raise in CO2 lowers the capability of atmosphere to radiate heat… Despite 5 year old experimental proof (by NASA of all things, someone there is not yet ready to lie for the cause) that decade+ of measurements during CO2 concentrations increase show clear (fudge factor in fractions of percents) evidence that increase of CO2 in atmosphere yields increased cooling of its top layers… CO2 is greenhouse gas in some cases. Not in Earth atmosphere. Experimentally proven, time for that fact to enter climatology theories.
# 12 dusanmal said, on October 19th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
@bobbo His main points are:
1) Scientific process (experiments, data, theories, peer review, publications, funding…) is corrupt vs. AGW. Particularly in APS, organization in which he had quite a leading role: monies and professional support were given on political basis vs. on the merits of scientific process. /// Anyone can say/allege/conclude anything they want to. Even if true, I don’t see any relevance to the science/models of AGW that are accepted as consensus science everywhere but the USA==just like evolution and the earth is round. Only in the USA are these accepted facts still “debated”==debated OUTSIDE of the scientists doing the work.
2) Part where he speaks with disgust about AGW data and theories. His letter was to APS where most (if not all) are aware of the crooked science involved, hence no links. /// I stated above this could be the case but Climate Gate has been reviewed and found to be minor and not affecting the AGW conclusion: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404001.html “Science” is not “crooked.” Errors and bias are made and corrected. You should know that.
As to Montford, he is another kook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Montford and evidently paid to do so, not that he could not be right, its just the consensus that is against him.
As to the specifics==thank you. I do welcome them. A few look familiar, a few new to me. As stated: science moves forward by making errors.
Thats hard on the dogs, Ma.
Finally! A scientist who supports my viewpoint.
Now I can sleep better knowing it was the rest of the scientists who were wrong, not me and my political party.
Actually I don’t think those are his points at all, as I can gather from the letter. Do you have some other writings of his that lead you to think those are his points?
He is upset about APS ignoring a petition he wrote, and felt it was due to groupthink within the organization’s leadership causing them to block his attempts at an evaluation of the science.
Bobbo, it is the same ClimateGate. The e-mails can’t change the science. He is referring more to the attitudes revealed by the e-mails. “Why should I give you my data, when you are just trying to find something wrong with it?” Manipulations of the editing process at journals to keep out contrary papers, threatening to not contribute papers to journals that don’t play along, trying to take out an editor who greenlights too many of the ‘wrong’ papers.
Mr. Physicist has recently joined a foundation:
whose stated aims are to challenge “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[1][2]
And:
Citing privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding “from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves.”
http://goo.gl/VKC1
The book by Montford is called Hockey Stick Illusion, and doesn’t cover the e-mails. There is another book called CRUTape letters which covers them pretty well, from a skeptic/lukewarmer viewpoint. Both are good reads. If you want to check out Montford, just decide if you like the writing style of Caspar and the Jesus Paper.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
I partly agree with #15, the issue is why can there not be an open discussion on climate change in APS? It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable to have one in a scientific organization.
#4 – I’m not sure science is about coming to a consensus as you suggest. There may be a consensus on an issue, but that consensus can still be proven correct or incorrect. Finally proving a hypothesis is what the goal of science is, not reaching a consensus.
“Respected”? By whom.
He hasn’t submitted work for peer review in 31 years.
One of his last more political works was assisting his ideological partner, Steven Schneider, to produce Nuclear War Survival Skills. A truly useful work – if you’re an idiot.
The denier crowd keeps repeating crap that was dismissed decades ago.
“I partly agree with #15, the issue is why can there not be an open discussion on climate change in APS? It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable to have one in a scientific organization.”
From the late 1950s when AGW was introduced, until the early 90’s when the science was deemed pretty much conclusive, there was massive amounts of discussion from all sides. Scientists pretty much took on every challenge to the theory that the anti-AGW crowd repeats ad-nauseum today, and, as good scientists do, they studied the arguments, created experiments, predicted observable outcomes, etc, and determined which arguments had merit – incorporating them into the general theory – and which were irrelevant, and which were bunk (like the scientists that predicted a new ice age in the early 70’s that the deniers keep bringing up as evidence that there is not consensus, even though consensus wasn’t really present until the early 90’s).
Energy interests are funding the deniers propaganda to the tune of billions. Its far more profitable to be a denier than be on the side of AGW consensus.
I think most of us here can agree
The global temps ARE going up and have been going up and down for eons. Humans ARE adding to the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the dispute is in how much our activities are contributing to natural change. Most life on the planet is set up to work well with the climate the way it has been for the last 10,000 years, for most change is going to be bad and bringing it on quicker will only make it worse.
and
The Kyoto Protocols were a mess letting China and India off the hook not cool. They are 1st world nations these days.
Here is some of what the American Physical Society had to say about Lewis’s accusations
“APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.””
#15–Mike==is that YOU Mike? So reasonable, fact based, and links. Just like dusanmal. What stars are in alignment?
#18–Holden==I think we are in basic agreement with quibbles on the terminology. “Finally proving a hypothesis is what the goal of science is, not reaching a consensus.” /// Yeah, but my terminology is that you don’t have that “proof” without a consensus saying so.
Regarding the calcification of the APS==if the group power that be decides they have made up their mind, how much of their time and money should be spent on decisions already made? ie=how much time should the National Academy of Science spend on creationism? Its what reaching a consensus is all about: just like Newtonian Physics: our minds are made up until we are blown away by a revolution brought by the genius of our century. Not the rantings of an old man supported by the status quo longings of vested business interests.
dusanmal==I do plan on going thru each of your criticisms. I believe the few I recognize have been in their turn criticized on several of the “How to respond to Climate Change Deniers” type websites. There are some good ones.
Climate Change, and better yet: Anthropomorphic Climate Change==a most excellent topic on which to determine how you know what you know and how you change your mind, if you ever do.
#12–dusanmal==Your Example No 1:
-Flawed experiments: best example 1990′s temperature data for Siberia. No funding for science in ex-USSR so “measurements” for decade long were records of month worth of late Summer data in Siberia repeated year-round. Every “climate scientist” in the World used this data for more than a decade without proper checking – because it helps AGW hype. No one wonders about total oddity (they still had snow there in Winters…). Even when caught: some papers still cite and use those flawed results! Today. /// Well, thats not an experiment but is flawed data sampling.xxxxxOk, googled for awhile and did not find this example but did find others to the same effect. Reminds me of Piltdown Man and the other early “false fossils” used to debunk Darwin. The consensus of scientific thought is that evolution is supported by many, many different observations. Piltdown Man is no longer discussed.
#8 “This guy is old!”
Yeah, and did you notice he’s white too?
#12–dusanmal==Your Example No 5:-Flawed theories: climatologists still assume that CO2 in Earth atmosphere is “greenhouse” gas, assuming that raise in CO2 lowers the capability of atmosphere to radiate heat… Despite 5 year old experimental proof (by NASA of all things, someone there is not yet ready to lie for the cause) that decade+ of measurements during CO2 concentrations increase show clear (fudge factor in fractions of percents) evidence that increase of CO2 in atmosphere yields increased cooling of its top layers… CO2 is greenhouse gas in some cases. Not in Earth atmosphere. Experimentally proven, time for that fact to enter climatology theories. /// Google does address this issue with many hits. I stopped after 5 in a row had serious errors in them throwing doubt on the rest, or I simply couldn’t follow the gyrations. I do recall reading about the history of the models that one of the issues was the complexity of modeling for co2 that it was an interaction of reflecting sun light back into space vs capturing the earth’s radiation. So, yes the gas has antagonistic effects. You say there is “proof” though? Got a link? Absent a control of another exact copy of earth with differing %’s of co2, is there really proof? Or have you switched definitions for the argument being made?
That’s a red herring, Bobbo. A good number of the people that are arguing against human-based warming do have facts and are examining the data, not just coming up with flawed studies or waving magic wands.
As for Lewis’s issues with APS — I find it odd that any truly scientific agency would not accept strong debate and alternate facts in such an important issue regardless of their “conclusions”. He may have sour apples, yes, but folks that are in organizations for that long don’t make such decisions lightly or on simple/stupid disagreements.
This is not on the same playing field as already accepted hypothesis: gravity pretty much works as stated, so someone putting forward a paper on gravity NOT working as expected would probably not be accepted. However, HUMAN-INFLUENCED global warming has too many problems with the studies put forward to build the conclusion. And anyone that shows alternative issues or that the data and studies are flawed is usually ignored or ridiculed.
Based on the articles I’ve looked at and the information I’ve read from multiple sources, I do not subscribe to HUMAN-INFLUENCED global warming, but a more natural rhythm that we are attributing to our own activities.
However, that doesn’t mean I don’t wish us to build alternative energy economies and reduce our usage of petroleum for transportation and electricity use. I just don’t see a value in huge amounts of money going to “berate” people into doing something, rather than taking that money and reducing the costs of those alternatives to make them more viable to us.
It truly bothers me that scientific organizations won’t accept dissent — unless it furthers their prestige or monetary gains. Though I do think that the dissenters should just build their own organizations and journals at this point.
Yes, Jim. You got it right. His resignation has nothing to do with proving or disproving AGW, but in having an open discussion about AGW.
McCullough in #1 also has it right. Lewis is concerned and wants an open discussion about the influence of Big Money on science.
We here at DU already decided this was a good idea. To have a “redo” on the climate change debate. To make it open and accessible, to give everyone a chance to come to a meeting of minds.
Isn’t this a good idea? Apparently the American Physical Society doesn’t think so.
Why not? What do they have to loose?
Don’t most of them confess after they have finished renting?
Don’t worry AGWers, your uber-dogma is assured. It will be resistant to any manner of data trends, confessions, actual openmindedness personal reading etc.
Any defector becomes an undead uncounted zombie denier (holocaust denier for non-jewish dictionary users).
I tried to warn people a couple of years ago that this was a giant scam to raise taxes and limit freedom but few would listen. Anytime people quote a politician (i.e. Al Gore) as a scientific expert and those that dare to disagree are branded as a “deniers” then there is something horribly wrong. The debate was rigged for political gain from day one.
Vindication is sweet. I am just glad that the truth came out before it was too late.
One of his main gripes is that the leadership of the APS did not take his petitions seriously, treating him like someone who suggested Lamarckism to a Biological society. Interestingly, Lamarckism used to have widespread “support” in the USSR, where it was used to “disprove” the theory of genetics opposed which Stalin hated so much.
So maybe he’s an old coot with an axe to grind, but his point that money, politics, and science make poor bedfellows is certainly important.