Quote:

---

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

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Anthony Watts describes it thus:

    This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).

    Dear Curt:
    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

    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. 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.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

    1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

    2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

    3. 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.

    4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

    5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

    6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

    APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

    I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

    I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
    Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
But isn't kind of going out on a limb for Al Gore to say  "OMG humanz are makign the earth too hot!!"

---

Not even in the slightest. As I said, we know for absolute 100% certain fact that compounds such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Sulfur Hexafluoride absorb and re-radiate IR wavelengths (heat).  We also know for a fact that humans are releasing those compounds into the atmosphere. I don't see how that's a hard connection to comprehend. They reflect heat + we release them = we're contributing to rising temperatures. That's literally the most simple math problem you'll ever see in your life.

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
There isn't enough data yet, it would be no better than Glenn Beck screaming about his coming apocalypse. It's all inflammatory until its proven. If I recall correctly, the past 10 years showing an overall cooling trend.

---

We're talking about long term climate trends here man. Don't take this the wrong way, because I like you and respect you as a person, but the fact that you're referencing a 10 year trend in this debate shows that you clearly don't have a firm enough grasp on the concept to really be making any sort of a statement on the subject.  That said, you're still actually not right about the last 10 years either
As for long term trends, there are FUCK TONS of studies with mountains of evidence that have been gathered. 30 seconds on Google can yield you enough sources (peer reviewed, none of those bullshit tabloid articles from either side please) to fill a textbook.

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
Pollution is not a good thing, but when you start to use it as an excuse to raise taxes on the people while the Navy, for example, goes out 2 miles off shore and dumps all their garbage directly into the ocean for 60+ years.

Education is the best thing that can be done about pollution, get people to understand why its bad and should give a shit.

Just because alarmists use the same method to get people riled up, doesn't mean that's what science should be using to curb pollution. Even if it's one of our largest problems as a society.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
You should give it a watch anyways.  Bill Nye owns accuweather.  Plus Bill Nye is still a scientist, and still does know his science.

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
But isn't kind of going out on a limb for Al Gore to say  "OMG humanz are makign the earth too hot!!"

---

Not even in the slightest. As I said, we know for absolute 100% certain fact that compounds such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Sulfur Hexafluoride absorb and re-radiate IR wavelengths (heat).  We also know for a fact that humans are releasing those compounds into the atmosphere. I don't see how that's a hard connection to comprehend. They reflect heat + we release them = we're contributing to rising temperatures. That's literally the most simple math problem you'll ever see in your life.

---

Its also a bunch of bullshit math.

I can make the same week ass argument about how marijuana causes cancer. Based on how its bad to inhale burnt material and all kinds of 'correlations' on how smoking causes cancer. People used that very argument about marijuana for YEARS and no one ever argued against that 'fact' because it sounded good. Although it was a bunch of fucking bullshit, laws were made based on bullshit science. Just like they are doing with 'Global Warming'

And I'd be wrong about weed causing cancer, for the same reasons you are wrong about human based global warming.

It looks like we are  causing global warming based on bullshit correlations. Just like it looked like weed should cause cancer based on bullshit correlations. There is no hard science that proves humans are the cause of the warming trend we are experiencing.

ZERO PROOF

only correlations

"CO2 is a green house gas
we produce greenhouse gasses
soooo...... humans cause global warming"



That is the ONLY answer I have ever heard from you "Global Warming Nuts'

Thats BULLSHIT science mate, and you should know that.

Tha Sky's a Fallin
Tha Sky's a Fallin

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

"CO2 is a green house gas
we produce greenhouse gasses
soooo...... humans cause global warming"



That is the ONLY answer I have ever heard from you "Global Warming Nuts'

Thats BULLSHIT science mate, and you should know that.

Tha Sky's a Fallin
Tha Sky's a Fallin

---

Are you serious?  If you can find me ONE SINGLE PAPER that demonstrates that CO2 doesn't re-radiate Infrared wavelengths, then I'll gladly concede the point. 

The fact is that it DOES. Plain and simple.  Like literally, it's not even up for debate. Do some research into the mechanism by which is (and numerous other compounds) do so and you'll see plain as day that they reflect those particular wavelengths. Quite frankly, if you do your research and still can confidently say that it's bullshit, then clearly the only reason you're able to state such a deluded point is because you're not capable of comprehending the mechanism by which it happens.

Here's some light reading to get you started, but in no way an exhaustive resource; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_theory , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

also, calling us "global warming nuts" and saying it's bullshit science is the sort of Ad hominem personal attack that just makes you look ignorant and immature.  If you can't refrain from those sorts of comments I'll just have to assume you're not mature enough to debate this intelligently and I'll assume that even attempting to explain my point is a waste of my time.

Although to be perfectly honest it's pretty clear that you've never set foot inside a science classroom of any level higher than high-school, so I find it a bit comedic that you're trying to assert any sort of intellectual might to the conversation in calling other people's research "bullshit."

WOW, not only have I called this 'science' bullshit....

Quote:

---

US physics professor Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara said: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

---

.....said the exact same thing. You're just butt hurt over the fact that your 'science' is bullshit.

Yes, CO2 is a green house gas. Im not disputing that fact. I am disputing the 'fact' that humans are causing global warming.

There is NO EVIDENCE for your assumption. Just correlations.

Maybe your the one that's been snowed by this 'pseudoscientific fraud'

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
Also nite owl, you're using a base rate fallacy.  Yes you've found someone with credentials that doesn't believe in global warming, but fail to take into account all the vast amount of data supported by people with equally qualifying or better credentials.

---