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.
#11 Bobbing for Subplots: “…that certainly is a very limited/skewed reading of the rejoinder”
You think so Bob? The first line: “A physicist named Hal Lewis who doesn’t know the first thing about climate science has resigned from the American Physical Society because he doesn’t know the first thing about climate science.”
I know nothing about climate science but, I am trained to evaluate scientific evidence and when iGore started pointing this stuff out, all I had to do was spend a few hours studying his claims and the science behind them to see gaping errors in the data if not the science. I’d just bet Mr Lewis is even better at it than I am.
The major point here is that there were no “climate scientists” until there was funding for them. I’m sure they all know there funding will continue uninterrupted and increased from year to year if they prove iGore wrong.
We know the contributions of Mr Lewis, even if they are in the past. The rejoinder is essentially anonymous. If it is indeed from Mr Romms, then we can easily see that he makes his living being fanatically supportive of AGW.
#26 Ariane Rocket: You are to climate science what Alfie is to just about anything political. You live in a science fiction fairyland where facts and logic are not needed but bellicose chauvinism is essential.
I’m about to go out to dinner at a restaurant that imports it’s beef from New Zealand. Very expensive and a huge carbon footprint to get it here. They will grill it over burning charcoal – huge quantities of CO2 being released. I hope it does not make you uncomfortable. Oh, and since they will serve it with beans, I will, like the cow I will eat, be adding to the methane problem tomorrow. My apologies.
For those with access to the November 2010 issue of Scientific American, I can thoroughly recommend the article entitled, “Climate Heretic: Why can’t we have a civil conversation about climate?”.
This is one of the most balanced articles on the subject that I have yet read. It discusses the views of Judith Curry, a climate scientist who nonetheless acknowledges that a small minority of skeptics have valid arguments that should be addressed seriously, rather than being met by a hysterical response from the main stream community.
Unfortunately, I can’t give a reference at the moment because the SciAm web site stills features the October issue.
Animby–thanks for the comments and good humor. But you are wrong. I think your brain turned off after reading the first sentence? It only made me laugh.
Ever hear of “textual analysis?”
Go thru the rejoinder with several felt tipped pens identifying what “subject issues” are relevant for you. Sounds like you might use “snarky irrelevant comments” in red, with “actually responsive to the relevant issues” in green. You’ll find a lot of green in the rejoinder==unless you are blinded by red?
Your major point would be highlighted in red in my textual analysis of your post: snarky irrelevant. What??? The only science of merit is down without funding by volunteer country gentlemen? Ha, ha. What are you, about 150 years behind the times? Even “a real bias” does not invalidate the results. Only conflicting findings do.
Algore made several errors in his greedy self serving power point presentation to the masses so AGW is wrong? Come now Animby. Surely you jest?
Amusing how the case made against AGW is what makes it so persuasive in my mind. I made better arguments against it myself that moved me to agnosticism. Its all of one warp and weave.
Silly Americans – no matter where they live. Ha, ha.
silly warmers, let them have their green religion. What harm does it do to let them pray to Mother nature?
David Suzuki accepts Global Warming:
http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/
Heh, heh. Dolts.
“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.”
This.
Climate Science is based upon data collected by geologist, biologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, archeologists, chemists, and physicists; the data all bound together using mathematics and statistics. And yet climate “scientists” reject any contrarian arguments from the experts in these fields. I especially find it amusing when statisticians tell them their math is wrong and the AGW crowd collectively blows it off.
It doesn’t matter if the science is wrong, so long as their peers agree with them.
There is a very interesting relevant post that analyzes the APS response to Dr. Lewis’ letter here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-aps-response-to-dr-hal-lewis-resignation/
#41–Smith==unless you have a direct link on point, your post is constructed as a conflation of unrelated reports. Are you repackaging the hockey stick issue? Are you???????
So simple.
# 34 bobbo,”Go thru the rejoinder with several felt tipped pens”
Sorry Robert – may I call you Robert? – I don’t have a printer available here in the clinic and I don’t really have any markers small enough to use on my phone screen. I’m lucky to have this feeble cell phone signal climbing up the mountain from Luang Prabang. 3G it’s not.
And when I get back home next week, I’m afraid I have a stack of journal articles I will have to prioritize over anonymous nonsense.
As for Dr Kaku – whom I admire for his ability to make complicated concepts approachable by ordinary people but who has a tendency to be superficial in his mass media methods, I paraphrase the anonymous rejoinder: A physicist named Michio Kaku who doesn’t know the first thing about climate science…
By the way, I was lying about the steak. Maybe not so much lying as dreaming. I’m not exactly sure what kind of protein that was the lady fried up with the veg. But I do feel I will be adding to the methane problem tomorrow.
#42–tsnyder==what makes that response interesting to you? Was it the irrelevant request to do an independent study? Was it the fact that an unknown number much less than 260 out of 48,000 members signed it?
Again, no facts/theory, just FUD.
#38 Alfie
“common sense tells us the Sun sets the temperature on earth”
Before you make any more naive, half-baked statements like that, go and inform yourself about the topic of ‘radiative forcing’ and the various components that affect it.
#45–Animby==being obtuse and constantly complaining (?) about being too busy to glance at the article again and direct your attention to the majority part that is responsive to the issues is – – – – weak.
I was going to comment on the superiority of Kobe Beef over New Zealand Beef and wonder why the Japanese don’t have Kobe Sheep, but I didn’t want to distract you further.
Robert? Sure, call me whatever you like, say whatever you like. I’m interested in the ideas you bring to the table. The humor. The insights.
But I’m patient, given nothing better to do that I can afford. Ha. ha…….
Yep, that’s how science works. One old senile crank vs 65,618 other scientists? Yes the old senile crank must be right and the other 10s of thousands of pages of research must be wrong. Clearly. Obviously. What OTHER answer could there be! World wide global conspiracy with a 10s of thousands of scientists…or an old crank.
RE: Occam’s razor
The tightest quip against AGW that I think I ever heard was from Michael Crichton.I remember him saying it this way:
As a far as I know, climate is a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic system” and is, therefore, by definition unpredictable.
The way he actually put it was in quoting from a U.N. study that described climate as a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic system” and concluded that “long-term prediction of climate is not possible.”
Crichton seemed to be particularly dismayed at people who rely on computer modeling for climate predictions because not one of them have been accurate enough in any ten-year segment to be worth anything. So he concludes that “I don’t think a computer model cuts it. I’m not believing it” and says also that “Most people I know haven’t looked at the data at all.”
— all this above, essentially abstracted from a Charlie Rose interview, Feb. 19, 2007. (easily found by searching)
At the end of the day, however, I find myself siding with bobbo (I know!…). I think there is a way to grant Crichton his argument and get beyond it. For one thing, the prima facia impact of the argument is really nothing more than to deny the legitimacy of inquiry itself to begin with. This is categorically unsatisfactory, and so at best can be allowed to amount but to a mere word of generic caution — which is something that most of us who are serious about such issues have to begin with. There are also some clear problems in how granularly defined the term “climate” is in the formulation of such an objection. The objection to the AGW science on the basis of the notion that we can’t predict within n-% of whether it will rain or not tomorrow is, in my mind, not a serious objection.
>nothing to do with proving or disproving AGW, but in having an open discussion about AGW.
The tone of the letter shows what his agenda is.
>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?
How about as much time as required by their rules when they receive a petition from the required number of members? This is what he is claiming, a claim that is not responded to in the ‘rebuttal,’ apparently written by their secretary.
>is that YOU Mike? So reasonable, fact based, and links. Just like dusanmal. What stars are in alignment?
The stars of what I said and what you think. You judge people based on whether they agree or disagree with you.
4, Bobbo,
Yup. Science isn’t a popularity contest and historically challenged the generally accepted “consensus”.
The scientific method is a PROCESS.
You generally reach a consensus when all other possible alternatives have been eliminated (based on empirical evidence). Computer simulations based on an assumption proves nothing.
Then what you have are theories or at the very least an unproven hypothesis that some seem to argue is adequate for a “scientific” consensus.
So, the science is concluded. Finished. No more research needs to be done.
Yet…
There is a group of scientists looking to put together the most massive combined telescope ever so that they can look at the silhouette of the black hole at the center of the galaxy to see if Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity really holds up. I thought that the science was settled 90 years ago (tongue in cheek).
Science should always be open to tests about the underlying laws and assumptions of reality. I find the AGW people to be a little closed minded to the possibility that the input data is so poor in recreated temperature data that their results have a margin of error greater than the conclusion. Plus, the whole idea that the computer model is right. I’ve done enough modeling of “simple” biological systems to know that “stuff in equals stuff out.”
It doesn’t matter anyway. Peak fossil fuels is here. Their assumptions are predicated upon unbelievable reserves of fossil fuels being used at ludicrous extraction rates for the next 50-100 years.
Gilgamesh–thank you “but” you spend most the time and argument setting up the negative premise and too little on the rationale for the flip. And your logic of the flip is in error. If the criticism that the climate models can’t predict a 10 year pattern, the notion that they don’t predict THE WEATHER tomorrow to some degree of accuracy. And btw, isn’t there a “consensus” ((I crack myself up.)) that weather predicting is pretty darn good for the next day out to a week or more and getting longer all the time? I think so.
I was going to look up if/how chaotic systems in the short term nonetheless become predictable over a longer term? That outcome makes sense to me, but I could be totally wrong. Is “climate” chaotic or merely very complex? In either case, seems to me I can predict that the air temperature will be warmer at noon than it will be at midnight. Where did the chaos go?
#51–Mickey==just like dismal, you could only get it together for one post. Too bad. Well, if you wanna get to Carnegie Hall, practice, practice, practice.
#52–Guyver==tired? You say: “Then what you have are theories or at the very least an unproven hypothesis that some seem to argue is adequate for a “scientific” consensus.” /// Yes, or the best answer we have at this time, still working on it. Hoomans hate ambiguity and even non-religious types still take comfort in certainty.
Who is more likely correct regarding a complex multi-disciplinary problem: vested business interests, political hacks, potential new business entrepreneurs, or scientists authoring peer reviewed papers?
Eh?
civengine==not including the joke and peak oil, I casually count 7 errors in your recital. You need a major rewrite. Getting tired and I don’t like hogging the thread, but somebody’s got to do it. That is also not true, so I’ll rewrite myself. Just tired of swatting at flies.
55, Bobbo,
A work in progress or best guess so far should not be cause for radically changing things before addressing all dissenting opinions or proving causality.
Looks like you singled out every group that can profit from this “crisis”. I’ll call it a draw given that the IPCC is a product of political hacks as well as new business vs. old business is still $$$.
I don’t mind encouraging people to be good stewards of their environment. I do find it troublesome that there are those who want to push a green agenda by providing a solution looking for a “man-made problem”. The Earth has had far warmer periods in its past before man was around. The problem could POTENTIALLY be cyclic and NATURAL.
When ANYONE can start making reliable predictions (based on the best guess) into the near term future rather than a future where all of us should then be dead, then I’ll pay much more attention. Otherwise, there’s no real reason to scream the sky is falling.
bobbo, I want you to point me to the papers, including the data and calculations, which prove man is causing global warming.
I won’t be holding my breath, because such proof doesn’t exist. It isn’t in ice cores, it isn’t in tree rings, it isn’t in the temperature record, and it sure as hell isn’t in computer models.
Anyone who doesn’t accept global warming can be place in one of two categories.
1) In the payroll of oil companies
2) Have a misunderstanding of the most basic science
Update to #33: The first part of the Scientific American article is now available online:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic
Is global warming a scam? No, the aspects of global warming and cooling are well documented by scientists including geologists, biologists, chemists, and physicists. Is human impacted increased global warming a scam? Possibly yes. But it works both ways. When I was a youngster (before many of your fathers and mothers were born (yes I am that old)). The prevailing idea was man made global cooling. The cause? air pollution. The evidence? colder than “average” temperatures. This carried through the seventies to a new generation. If you can recall the sixties then you weren’t there. The social consciousness was to overturn the establishment. Through the late seventies into the eighties especially the late eighties. Anybody remember 88 the year the earth struck back. The buzzword became man made global warming. The evidence? warmer than “average” temperatures. Sounds kind of familiar. As deep throat said, follow the money. As much as we might like to believe that science occurs in a vacuum, it does not. It is supported by patrons in the same way that art was and sometimes is. If you don’t agree and condescend to the patron you will need to find yourself a new patron. The patron now is support man made global warming. If you don’t support you don’t get funding, and whether we like it or not, money does make the world go round. In summary as both an environmental biologist and chemist. I do believe in global warming, I don’t believe in the complete validity of man made increases in global warming. The models are still too vague and the data still to subject to error and misrepresentation, not necessarily willful manipulation by either side. Just not convincing to a scientifically specified accuracy. I would add a caveat even if you don’t believe in man made global warming, continuing to use fuels that have been shown to impact human health, and also have a finite supply seems rather shortsighted. Or to quote bobbo “silly hoomans”
#57–Guyver==you know, whether you know it or not, agree or not, I think you are “conflating” ((a word I’m not intending to but finding myself using more and more)) two issues: the correct response to AGW and whether or not AGW is true==and a third bonus as I type==whether or not AGW is an issue that even if true, humans should react to.
Its a sad state of perception/argument/actually thinking only in terms of extremes. Either/or. You are doing that here: “A work in progress or best guess so far should not be cause for radically changing things before addressing all dissenting opinions or proving causality.” /// Even if proven “true” there is no call or justification for “radical” anything. What else can radical mean except “out of proportion to the response required?” In fact, the whole point of coming to grips with AGW as soon as possible ((even though even now we may be too late for any response except geo engineering on a massive, but not radical, scale)) is to make the necessary/adviseable changes now while they are as cheap to do / less distruptive to do, as possible.
RISK MANAGEMENT. You don’t wait for 100% certainty, you manage the “risk” that is present. Is your position that there is no risk? Any idiot can be a skeptic on any issue. I do it all the time. Its fun. It sharpens the wit and our analytical abilities. But in the end, conclusions must be drawn and acted upon otherwise you aren’t engaged in the real world.
The IPCC may be a conspiracy but I don’t think all the scientists making the consensus are. Silly to be a conspiracist. I will trust you to be honest enough to recognize that without further argument.
#58–smith==standing too close to the co2? Brain damaged? Can’t read? There is not and cannot be “proof” of global warming. There is no control group. And that is giving you credit for not being a complete ass and thinking of mathematical proof.
Tool, Fool, or hack?
Clancy==so old yet haven’t learned the difference between a bias and a lock.
Silly.
Actually I have, your lack of science knowledge is showing.
Clancy==then you should exercise it. Science is science. Blather is Blather. Saying “follow the money” works only to expose bias and has nothing to do with the underlying science. Same with political corruption although some might say politics is nothing but corruption, but that is another issue.